PDA

View Full Version : Jane Austen 'rejected'



seun
07-19-2007, 03:07 PM
http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,,2129738,00.html

Serenity
07-19-2007, 03:14 PM
Doesn't this pop up every six months or so?

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 03:21 PM
Maybe the agents who rejected it recognised her work, but just sent a form rejection rather than bothering to say, "We know what you're doing." They probably thought it was beneath them to even acknowledge it.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 03:24 PM
I think it would be a greater experiment to take a novel by, say, Richard Russo and change it a bit and find out what the reception would be. I think one might find the very same results. As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

seun
07-19-2007, 03:32 PM
Maybe the agents who rejected it recognised her work, but just sent a form rejection rather than bothering to say, "We know what you're doing." They probably thought it was beneath them to even acknowledge it.

I did think the same. I'd rather think that than think this was a real rejection because the agents and publishers didn't think the sample had any potential.

seun
07-19-2007, 03:33 PM
As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

That's depressing.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 03:35 PM
And untrue.

Plenty of first-timers are published each year.

Maybe good books are rejected (I don't believe so but I know others here hold different views) but good writers never are. Eventually, talent will out.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 03:40 PM
And untrue.

Plenty of first-timers are published each year.

Maybe good books are rejected (I don't believe so but I know others here hold different views) but good writers never are. Eventually, talent will out.

You are right, scarletpeaches! I think too many people just don't have the staying power to continually get rejections. If your writing is good, you will eventually prevail.

However, I think there has been a ton of good books that have never seen the light of day.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 03:41 PM
Oh, and by the way, even my own agent told me the same thing. Agents may see your talent, and even editors may see the same thing, but that doesn't necessarily translate when it comes to the money people at publishing houses.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 03:46 PM
I think my books have thus far been rejected for one reason and one reason only:

They're not good enough.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 03:52 PM
I think my books have thus far been rejected for one reason and one reason only:

They're not good enough.

I wouldn't know about that, but I always remind my friends that F. Scott Fitzgerald papered his office walls with rejection slips. I don't think anyone surpassed him with careful and consciencious writing. But, he finally did prevail.

Dawnstorm
07-19-2007, 03:56 PM
Doesn't this pop up every six months or so?

Yeah, I suspect plenty of writers try that, with plenty of famous authors, say VS Naipaul (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article784029.ece). Some hit the news. I suspect most don't. How many "rip-offs" do you think editors receive?

I wish people would stop doing this. It's been done before, and not only once. Once you realise that they could have read your real manuscript instead...

ccarver30
07-19-2007, 03:59 PM
I think it would be a greater experiment to take a novel by, say, Richard Russo and change it a bit and find out what the reception would be. I think one might find the very same results. As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

*jumps off cliff*

aadams73
07-19-2007, 04:03 PM
As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

Fortunately, that's a pantsload of crap. Debut novelists from unfamous families get published all the time.

I'm with the Mighty Peachy One, I think they recognized the sample and just sent out a form reply.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 04:04 PM
"Mighty Peachy One." :D That'll be me, then?

seun
07-19-2007, 04:17 PM
"Mighty Peachy One." :D That'll be me, then?

Is that your secret superhero identity?

aadams73
07-19-2007, 04:18 PM
"Mighty Peachy One." :D That'll be me, then?

Yup, like a superhero. You're the defender of...uh...stuff.

AnneMarble
07-19-2007, 04:40 PM
Doesn't this pop up every six months or so?
Yup. The last time they tried this, somebody ripped off stories by prize-winning authors such as VS Naipul, then used the whole thing to prove Naipul couldn't get published today, etc. I think it proved the editors could use Google. ;) Sadly, some authors on a list I moderate were sure this was proof that the big publishing companies were clods who wouldn't recognize a great manuscript and were interested only in pap. Right, whatever.

In this case, what really pisses me off is that the guy tried this three times. First he sent a copy of Northanger Abbey. When it was rejected, he decided that wasn't Austen's best book, so he'd try again, and then he sent them Persuasion. For some strange reason, that wasn't accepted, either. So he sent them Pride and Prejudice, without even changing the famous first line. One of the responses did point out that his writing was clearly ripped off Austen. Thank God somebody called him on it, or he might have sent them a copy of Emma as well. Didn't he realize that he was wasting their time with this nonsense? Editors and agents have a limited number of time in which to read giant stacks of submissions (one of the editors who gave a talk at RWA said she gets six feet of mail per week!), so he was taking time away from authors with legitimate submissions.
:rant:

And what would he have done if one of his plagiarized manuscripts had been accepted? (Very unlikely, of course, but let's say that Google was broken on their computers, and the Jane Austen portion in the brains of all editors and other staff members had been destroyed in a freak subway accident. :D) I can just imagine him having to explain himself. "Sorry, it was an experiment. Heh heh. I'll... heh heh... be going now."


Maybe the agents who rejected it recognised her work, but just sent a form rejection rather than bothering to say, "We know what you're doing." They probably thought it was beneath them to even acknowledge it.
Fromw what I've heard about editors, this is probably what happened. Editors are in the business because they love books, after all. Otherwise, they'd be making more money marketing toothpaste. ;) Whenever this happens, they tend to send off form rejections because they figure they're dealing with 1) a plagiarist; 2) another writer wasting their time with the same experiment that has been done dozens of times or more; 3) delusional; or 4) a reporter.

In the case of sending them Pride and Prejudice, the guy didn't even bother changing the first line, and barely changed the other lines, at least at the beginning. Come on, doesn't he think editors use Google? And I wouldn't need Google to recognize such a famous first line.


I think it would be a greater experiment to take a novel by, say, Richard Russo and change it a bit and find out what the reception would be. I think one might find the very same results. As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

Nah. I attended the Romance Writers of America conference last week, and a lot of the editors -- yes, even the ones who only take unagented submissions -- were very excited about some of their debut authors. (I met some of these authors. They really exist, and they don't come from famous families.)

I'd be realllly interested in knowing which agents are saying things like this. Often, the agents who make these sorts of claims aren't established agents who really know the business. Some of them are even infamous agents who make these claims in the hopes of driving more authors their way. :(

In the article, it looks like this author tried the experiment because he had been unable to sell his book. Well, gee, maybe it wasn't publishable?... The editor I mentioned above also said that despite popular conceptions, the chasm between publishable and unpublishable is "like the Grand Canyon." While you often hear of publishers whose manuscripts "almost" got published, she pointed out that you don't "almost" miss being published, adding, "People don't get published by a nose, they get published because it's inevitable." (This was particularly true with her publisher, which didn't have a "comittee" that turned down manuscripts the editor liked.) This was a commercial publisher, so maybe the situation is different for literary manuscripts, but I'll bet the competition is just as hard there.

maestrowork
07-19-2007, 05:11 PM
That experiment is just dumb. First, the work were written eons ago -- styles, etc. all changed. It's like dressing up as a Templar knight at Fashion Week in NYC... Second, Austen's stories are classic and well known, and no agent would take on any work that has a synopsis that reads exactly like, say, Pride & Prejudice, without any update. Plagiarism, shall we say?

And like Scarlet said, it doesn't prove anything. First-timer gets published all the time -- if you stick around this board long enough, you will see the evidence of that. Besides, EVERY best selling author started out as a first-time published author.

Celia Cyanide
07-19-2007, 05:25 PM
As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

There are some books written by very famous novelists that I think might not have been published if they had been written by an unknown author. So yeah, I think it's easier for very well established authors than previously unpublished authors. But if what that agent told you was true, eventually, all the authors would die off and all the books we had left would be ghostwritten for celebrities. Perhaps that agent was frustrated because s/he was having trouble selling anything?

As for the OP, I do agree that experiments like this don't prove that agents don't know what they're doing. They don't prove much of anything. But I do think it's possible that standards have changed in some ways. There is no way to test that, really, but I think it could be true.

SarahinOhio
07-19-2007, 05:39 PM
I think the only thing this little experiment proves is that misery loves company.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 05:39 PM
There are some books written by very famous novelists that I think might not have been published if they had been written by an unknown author. So yeah, I think it's easier for very well established authors than previously unpublished authors. But if what that agent told you was true, eventually, all the authors would die off and all the books we had left would be ghostwritten for celebrities. Perhaps that agent was frustrated because s/he was having trouble selling anything?

As for the OP, I do agree that experiments like this don't prove that agents don't know what they're doing. They don't prove much of anything. But I do think it's possible that standards have changed in some ways. There is no way to test that, really, but I think it could be true.

I don't know if you're familiar with Dennis Lehane (MYSTIC RIVER) and the fact that Claire Wachtel is his editor, but he had to write five or six detective novels with the same format before he sold MYSTIC RIVER and subsequently SHUTTER ISLAND. These two books were less genre driven. I don't know whether he could've sold those books before he became established. They were bought by Wachtel because it was Dennis Lehane who wrote them. Neither of those books are the quality of Russell Banks or Richard Russo. And yes, they were debut novelists at one time also. PERSEVERENCE is the issue. You can never stop having hope. If the talent is there, you will finally get recognized, I think.

maestrowork
07-19-2007, 05:43 PM
There are some books written by very famous novelists that I think might not have been published if they had been written by an unknown author.

Once you're known, the game changes because, well, you have a fan base.

Harris
07-19-2007, 05:45 PM
I stopped visiting this forum because of the arrogant behavior by the "wish I was famous" crowd. Someone emailed me saying that again the AW forum had the debate on if good work was passed over. I'm assuming this was the thread they mentioned.

Bad books do get published. You have to hit the right note with an agent or publisher to get your worked looked at. There is some talent involved and a hell of a lot of luck. Think about poor McLarty.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/art-of-getting-published/2005/09/10/1125772732702.html

Point being, write because you love it. Every year hack books are released and praised and are garbage. I've found true gems in small publishers that most of you would find unacceptable. I have no doubt that marketing runs most acquisitions.

I'm also sure someone did recognize Austen's work. Now I must return to real life. The internet version has grown too predictable.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 05:46 PM
Wow, I'm sure glad you came back to educate us.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 05:49 PM
I stopped visiting this forum because of the arrogant behavior by the "wish I was famous" crowd. Someone emailed me saying that again the AW forum had the debate on if good work was passed over. I'm assuming this was the thread they mentioned.

Bad books do get published. You have to hit the right note with an agent or publisher to get your worked looked at. There is some talent involved and a hell of a lot of luck. Think about poor McLarty.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/art-of-getting-published/2005/09/10/1125772732702.html

Point being, write because you love it. Every year hack books are released and praised and are garbage. I've found true gems in small publishers that most of you would find unacceptable. I have no doubt that marketing runs most acquisitions.

I'm also sure someone did recognize Austen's work. Now I must return to real life. The internet version has grown too predictable.

Do I need to genuflect?

maestrowork
07-19-2007, 05:51 PM
As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

Damn, I am not famous nor is my family. I'm doomed... Wait, wait. I got published. As did Liam Jackson (by Thomas Dunne), Patricia Wood (by Putnam), Adrienne Kress (Scholastic UK/Weinstein Books), among others.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 06:03 PM
Do I need to genuflect?

An 'interesting' hand-signal will suffice.

seun
07-19-2007, 06:07 PM
I stopped visiting this forum because of the arrogant behavior by the "wish I was famous" crowd. Someone emailed me saying that again the AW forum had the debate on if good work was passed over. I'm assuming this was the thread they mentioned.


I think the expression I want is...

'Ooooh, get you.'

aadams73
07-19-2007, 06:09 PM
I stopped visiting this forum because of the arrogant behavior by the "wish I was famous" crowd.

Now I must return to real life. The internet version has grown too predictable.

Here, let me bend over; I have something you can kiss.

Silver King
07-19-2007, 06:16 PM
Gee, Harris, thanks for checking in. Now get back under that rock you climbed out from under so we can keep wishing we were famous.

maestrowork
07-19-2007, 06:16 PM
I stopped visiting this forum because of the arrogant behavior by the "wish I was famous" crowd. .... Now I must return to real life. The internet version has grown too predictable.

Now who's on the high horse? Hopefully, you won't come back.

AnneMarble
07-19-2007, 06:23 PM
...I'm also sure someone did recognize Austen's work. Now I must return to real life. The internet version has grown too predictable.
:Hail:

Or something like that.
:roll:

Birol
07-19-2007, 06:29 PM
Doesn't this pop up every six months or so?

Yes. And, as so many have pointed out, it's utter nonsense, not to mention plagiarism.


I think it would be a greater experiment to take a novel by, say, Richard Russo and change it a bit and find out what the reception would be. I think one might find the very same results.

No, it wouldn't be a greater experiment. It would still be utter nonsense and plagiarism.

What the people who perform and buy into this experiment "assume" is that editors don't read, that they don't recognize what's been done before, that they aren't familiar with things that are already being published, that they are easily hoodwinked, that they are, in short, ignorant and possibly stupid. None of which is true. Not only do most editors have a great love of the written word, they are also well-versed in their industry. The are also neither ignorant or stupid.

Honestly, this so-called "experiment" irritates me. All it proves is that the so-called writer who performs it is a self-centered, egotistical idiot. And, yes, you can quote me on that.


As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

This isn't an agent you want representing you.


I wouldn't know about that, but I always remind my friends that F. Scott Fitzgerald papered his office walls with rejection slips. I don't think anyone surpassed him with careful and consciencious writing. But, he finally did prevail.

The greats weren't born great. They had to learn like everyone else. Why is it any surprise that individuals whose work survived their death or who went on to become household names and to learn and study their craft like everyone else?

Birol
07-19-2007, 06:32 PM
Harris, you're welcome to remain, but please check your ego at the door. Everyone's just people here, same as everyone else, with all the disparities and failings that being just people entails.

Everyone else, try not to rise to the bait, okay?

seun
07-19-2007, 06:37 PM
Harris, you're welcome to remain, but please check your ego at the door. Everyone's just people here, same as everyone else, with all the disparities and failings that being just people entails.

Everyone else, try not to rise to the bait, okay?

I'm a master at baiting. :D

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 06:39 PM
And a cunning linguist.

seun
07-19-2007, 06:41 PM
And a cunning linguist.

That's a mouthful.

davids
07-19-2007, 06:48 PM
Wow, I'm sure glad you came back to educate us.


Yup Miss Scarlet-I do feel betterer edumacated thanks to that eruditic post! Phew-sure am glad that I had no idea about a damn thing or I would never have gotten an agent-who is now a dear friend-or any of the other fantastic but of course just lucky things in life that have happened because what I do not know shyte.

I am also with Ray and my friend Miss Scarlet-like agents really want another P & P. They-at least the ones that count-may want a little tidbit that is professionally written-you know all the good stuff what we all likes-and in a form that most of the folks out there that do not even know who the hell this Austen lady was-might put out a buck or two for-but then again I got no damn idea about this here book writin' sellin' crap!

Harris
07-19-2007, 07:36 PM
Ooh. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? I find you all very curious. None of you commented on the article that demonstrated my point. You lacked proper ammunition and so you attacked personally. Fascinating.

Did I strike a nerve? Is there some hidden fear you all have that true success will never find you? I said it once and I will say it again. Write for the love of writing. That's all that matters. Certainly not your opinion of me.

scarletpeaches
07-19-2007, 07:41 PM
How could we hurt your widdle feewings if you don't have any?

Read the article. Didn't see the point. I mean, he's published now, so who cares?

And may I remind you that posts which start off by accusing us of being arrogant wannabes isn't likely to engender an in-depth discussion of your post. You start off by displaying bad manners, you don't deserve anything more in return than dismissal.

Toothpaste
07-19-2007, 07:41 PM
I think the reason you got so few replies is this isn't the first time we've seen this sort of article or discussed it. It gets a little much having the same discussion over and over again.

Still in this thread alone I saw people commenting that it is quite likely the editors knew it was Jane Austen. That times have changed, and Jane Austen wrote of a different time and style that is out of fashion now. Did you not see those responses? I don't think it struck a nerve and if it did it was the "oh yeah, that old argument" nerve.

maestrowork
07-19-2007, 07:48 PM
I don't think Harris actually read the responses in this thread.

AnneMarble
07-19-2007, 07:50 PM
Ooh. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? I find you all very curious. None of you commented on the article that demonstrated my point. You lacked proper ammunition and so you attacked personally. Fascinating.
All the article proves is that this experiment happens at least every six months that we know of, and that journalists gleefully report on it as if it proved something. All their reportage proves is that they don't have a clue about how publishing works -- or maybe those reporters can't get published and believe in the hype of the experiment rather than giving up on their manuscript and writing a second, better book. For the most part, nobody here was impressed by the article or by the "point" that it made. We've seen this sort of "experiment" before, and we know that the editors or agents who got the Austen books detected the plagiarism, rolled their eyes, and sent out form rejection slips.

The first time I read about an experiment like this, I was in high school. Yet even then, I was able to read between the lines of the reporting and realized the editors saw through the scam, even if the reporter wasn't bright enough to realize that the editors detected the plagiarism.


Did I strike a nerve? Is there some hidden fear you all have that true success will never find you? I said it once and I will say it again. Write for the love of writing. That's all that matters. Certainly not your opinion of me.
I think we must be reading a different thread. I know I will get published, and I will do so writing the stuff I love writing. I did wonder about the quality of the original manuscript of the guy who submitted the Austen books. The article says he did the experiment because he couldn't get his manuscript accepted, and it sounds like another case of a writer who refused to either rewrite or set aside a manuscript that wasn't ready for prime time and instead tried to blame publishing and editors for the rejections. After all, my first novel is sitting in a plastic crate somewhere, and I take it out for a good laugh once in a while, but I quickly realized it wasn't good enough to get published. :D

davids
07-19-2007, 07:51 PM
Ooh. Are you trying to hurt my feelings? I find you all very curious. None of you commented on the article that demonstrated my point. You lacked proper ammunition and so you attacked personally. Fascinating.

Did I strike a nerve? Is there some hidden fear you all have that true success will never find you? I said it once and I will say it again. Write for the love of writing. That's all that matters. Certainly not your opinion of me.


Well it seems that you are a little frightened-arrogance-being addressed in an arrogant manner-coming to a thread that you obviously despise-Hmmm?? I read the article-so what? Me? I admit to being a writer that has been incredibly lucky-do not care if my shit is crappy or not-this is true although in the realm in which you live you probably cannot fathom that there really are some of us out there that do not give a shit whether the crap they write is good or bad-but rather that they enjoy a good write-are incredibly lucky-and have money to burn-and strangely enough there are others out there willing to pay a buck or two for shitty writing-stating the obvious. I know-now back you go to the wherevers and the what nots and bother us no longer-that is if you do not mind and feel that you have proven all of your well founded points!

Will Lavender
07-19-2007, 07:59 PM
As an agent told me last spring, if you are a debut novelist, you better come from a famous family or be famous. Otherwise, your chances are remote at best.

We've all heard something like this. On an agent's blog not long ago, the blogger said that it was impossible to get lit fiction published. When called on it by one of the blog's readers, she stood by it, saying that if you weren't Roth or Russo or DeLillo then you weren't going to get literary fiction on the shelves.

First, the evidence says otherwise. There are new books on the front table by debut authors every time I walk into a bookstore.

And second, think about who's saying these kinds of things. And for the most part, who does say them?

Writers and agents.

Seems to me that writers and agents are the two kinds of people that you shouldn't listen to in these matters. Why? Because, let's face it, writers often play the sour grapes angle. I've done it myself, as I'm sure we all have.

And obviously, it's easy for agents to say, "You're not going to get published." It makes their job a hell of a lot easier, especially if they're an average agent. If they rep you, and you can't sell the novel, then they can say, "See, I told you."

Birol
07-19-2007, 08:04 PM
Okay, let me be clear, the bickering ends now or I lock the thread.

davids
07-19-2007, 08:20 PM
Lock it the person bickered about has departed-or we could carry on a civil discussion about the topic-Hmmm-quaint idea really! I do luv a quaint bicker-so I too shall bid you all a fondue aducks

Celia Cyanide
07-19-2007, 08:27 PM
What the people who perform and buy into this experiment "assume" is that editors don't read, that they don't recognize what's been done before, that they aren't familiar with things that are already being published, that they are easily hoodwinked, that they are, in short, ignorant and possibly stupid. None of which is true. Not only do most editors have a great love of the written word, they are also well-versed in their industry. The are also neither ignorant or stupid.

Very true. I mean, come on! I would recognize Jane Austin, and I'm not ever a fan! I think most agents went to college.

I think it is possible that her books would not get published today. Not because they aren't good anymore, but because they might not be marketable. They are popular now because they are classics, and we can put them into the context of when they were written. If they were written now, they might be viewed differently. But we can't possibly know that for sure, because Jane Austin already wrote them.

gerrydodge
07-19-2007, 10:02 PM
We've all heard something like this. On an agent's blog not long ago, the blogger said that it was impossible to get lit fiction published. When called on it by one of the blog's readers, she stood by it, saying that if you weren't Roth or Russo or DeLillo then you weren't going to get literary fiction on the shelves.

First, the evidence says otherwise. There are new books on the front table by debut authors every time I walk into a bookstore.

And second, think about who's saying these kinds of things. And for the most part, who does say them?

Writers and agents.

Seems to me that writers and agents are the two kinds of people that you shouldn't listen to in these matters. Why? Because, let's face it, writers often play the sour grapes angle. I've done it myself, as I'm sure we all have.

And obviously, it's easy for agents to say, "You're not going to get published." It makes their job a hell of a lot easier, especially if they're an average agent. If they rep you, and you can't sell the novel, then they can say, "See, I told you."

Obviously, I don't believe what the agent said. I went right on querying and am writing everyday and waiting to hear from my agent about editors who have requested my novel. I'd be interested, however, in seeing how good a writer Leonard Elmore's son is. He just published a debut novel. It will be out next year. I don't begrudge those people--good for them. I'm going to feel better, though, when I sell a book on my talent alone.

P.S. Will Lavender, my wife is going down to Louisville for a family thing. Can you recommend a good restaurant and a good Jazz club. And some good local bourbon she can bring home to her husband?

Thanks,

Gerry

MathRules
07-20-2007, 10:28 AM
Wow, whatinhell is going on with that post by Harris? I didn't hear anything arrogant in this thread, and so what if I want to be famous? (don't really care about the famous part that much, gimme the folding money!!!). Dang, I feel chastised!

Was the milk for your fruit loops curdled this morning?

Birol
07-20-2007, 06:01 PM
Math, I said that subject was dropped.

MathRules
07-20-2007, 11:26 PM
Sorry, didn't see your posts. Should have read through all of them, didn't go to the last page.

Birol
07-23-2007, 07:11 PM
Here's the other side (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/havent_we_seen_the_bogus_manus.html) of the story.

davids
07-23-2007, 07:54 PM
Here's the other side (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2007/07/havent_we_seen_the_bogus_manus.html) of the story.

Sanity strikes again! She is of course right on the old mark-well said and well written-thanks for posting this Birol!

Danger Jane
07-25-2007, 12:27 AM
I think my books have thus far been rejected for one reason and one reason only:

They're not good enough.

Scarlet, you're brilliant.

scarletpeaches
07-25-2007, 12:28 AM
Tell me something I don't know, doll. ;)

Danger Jane
07-25-2007, 12:34 AM
The back of your head is also really great.

maestrowork
07-25-2007, 12:43 AM
The back of your head is also really great.

I wish I could say the same about her.

Oh, did I just thought that loud?

/slinging away

scarletpeaches
07-25-2007, 12:44 AM
:cry:

Danger Jane
07-25-2007, 09:55 AM
And you have a BEAUTIFUL SOUL.

badducky
07-26-2007, 12:29 AM
Damn, I am not famous nor is my family. I'm doomed... Wait, wait. I got published. As did Liam Jackson (by Thomas Dunne), Patricia Wood (by Putnam), Adrienne Kress (Scholastic UK/Weinstein Books), among others.

I didn't make the list because I actually come from a famous family.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001518/

He's my eighth cousin twice removed on my great-great-grandmother's side.

More importantly, I am six degrees from Kevin Bacon.