[Editorial note: A tweet linked to the Writer Beware blog a day or two before 4/26/13 says the blog was chosen again as among Writer's Digest's 101 best Web sites for writers. I suppose some level of congratulations is in order for Writer Beware, but in reviewing my note below, released last year, I would say its tone is a bit dark/hard, but content-wise it's within its rights. But on the front The Write Agenda, see also this recent blog entry of mine.]
I did not want to get in the middle of any spat between those announcing Writer Beware’s recently winning awards (and associated congratulations, etc., from its followers and friends) and those among its enemies who have been, in more limited forums, voicing condemnation of these particular awardings to that blog. My own position is that I do not congratulate Writer Beware on these awards, nor do I condemn the particular awardings to them (or the judgment or motivations of those doing these particular awardings).
I did not want to get in the middle of any spat between those announcing Writer Beware’s recently winning awards (and associated congratulations, etc., from its followers and friends) and those among its enemies who have been, in more limited forums, voicing condemnation of these particular awardings to that blog. My own position is that I do not congratulate Writer Beware on these awards, nor do I condemn the particular awardings to them (or the judgment or motivations of those doing these particular awardings).
It has seemed to me, from various inferences and educated guesses, tough enough for various Internet surfers to understand my position with respect to these opposed camps, as much as I’ve been consistent with my own messages rooted in the 2008 phase of the Bauer v. Glatzer lawsuit, and as much as I try to make clear my own voice as a writer and publishing professional who is independent of these camps. Nevertheless, in the echo of the cheers and jeers about the awards, to try to make my position clear I post below most of the statement on a flier I have started enclosing with some mailed queries for work. This is an update of a flier I started using in early 2011 then used only rarely.
Among the main changes to the new edition is what I redact from the version below, a comment at the end about the insurance company that insured SFWA and Writer Beware, at least regarding the Bauer lawsuit. (Boldface and italics follow the original, but type size varies on the original.) I believe the statement below is fair under a review of the relevant facts, and should not be read to "give any comfort to the enemy" or the like.
###
If you are curious about me and find intriguing information about me on the Internet, please do not contact the fantasy writer Victoria Strauss as if she is likely to be some kind of authority about me—as a writer, editor, or anything else. Why?
- Ms. Strauss and I would have no connection of any significant sort today if it were not for the Bauer v. Glatzer lawsuit, and if I hadn’t contacted Ms. Strauss in early 2005 in an informational exchange about my literary agent Barbara Bauer, after which I expected not to deal with Ms. Strauss again, though this contact ironically was a prelude to much further involvement with her in 2006 and afterward, usually not entirely friendly.
- In 2008, I received adjudication in the Bauer suit—meaning, a judge’s decision on my role as a defendant—on a motion I made (as a pro se litigant) that was a type based in good part on facts (a motion for summary judgment). Ms. Strauss has received no such adjudication in the suit, as the suit was dismissed against her and about 16 other defendants in 2010 because the plaintiff wasn’t following the court rules properly. However, the dismissal was without prejudice, meaning a complaint could be filed by the plaintiff against Ms. Strauss (and others) again. In short, a decision on my role in the nexus of issues raised by Bauer was decided, by a judge, based on motion papers I filed that obviously the court found acceptable; and of course I was sworn in during my involvement with the court. Hence, any idea that Ms. Strauss is a more trustworthy source of “my validity” as a professional than I am myself is ridiculous, just from the standpoint of the lawsuit.
- Ms. Strauss has very limited experience in the type of writing and editing that I have done the most, which is related to nonfiction. Ms. Strauss’s métier is fantasy writing, in which she has written books, and regarding which she has written reviews of others’ books, maintained a Web site, been a judge of contests, and had other roles. If I were a fantasy writer, maybe she would be a good means by which to vet me, but because I am not a fantasy writer, and she doesn’t have much or any experience in the areas of publishing in which I have functioned, she is not such an appropriate means.
- If Ms. Strauss were an intellectual giant like Norman Mailer, who wrote on a wide range of things, or Ursula K. LeGuin, the renowned sci-fi writer, perhaps she would have the credentials to judge me. But she has authored books at least two of which went (virtually) out of print within about 12 years (see her Writer Beware [http://accrispin.blogspot.com] blog entry of February 8, 2011, for more info). Also, she is not represented as if she is a major writer in her field in such a reference book as Fantasy Literature for Children and Young Adults: A Comprehensive Guide, Fifth Edition, by Ruth Nadelman Lynn (Westport, Conn.: Libraries Unlimited, 2005). Only two of her books (The Burning Land, on p. 404, and Worldstone, on p. 560) are referred to there, among the now-eight she has published. So, as esteemed a writer as she has a right to be based on her work, she is not a writer who has such wide competence or renown that she is a good reference—certainly not the most important one—for your vetting purposes regarding me.
- Given all I have said above; and given actions of hers (in 2006 and before) regarding Bauer, who used to be a literary agent of mine; and given that she has not seen fit to congratulate me on my part in the lawsuit during, or after, all my tough dealing with it in 2008, which suit had the incidental effect of “softening up” the plaintiff for the purposes of Strauss and other remaining defendants, I find it not a little insulting that people would contact her as if she were an authority to be consulted on me, or to be given news about whatever I do in my professional life.
