?

Log in

The Past | The Previous

Wanted, Assistant.

Apparently, Dan Brown has an assistant called Blythe. This assistant is emerging as "a key partner in Brown's phenomenal success, researching and suggesting plot ideas," in the case about non-fiction authors wanting money because some of their ideas ended up in fiction and being acknowledged for it. I look forward to the many lawsuits brought against authors from now on for doing research and acknowledging their sources and Blythe's eventual sacrifice as a scape goat as the bad assistant who lead the poor Brown down the path of plagiarism. Well, some kind of plagiarism.

Still, I have decided that I need an assistant. Obviously, if I am to be rich and famous and write bad novels, I need one. Plus, I like the idea of sitting round, playing video games, while someone does the hard work for me.

Consider the following carefully, and if you are interested, please send me your Assistant Resume.



Wanted, Assistant.


  • Location Not Important

  • Career Orientated Opportunity

  • Must Be Able to Read At High School Graduate Level



Obscure author seeks assistant. Great opportunity for research minded individual. Pay Negotiable. Accommodation will be provided as part of "salary" package. Do you know how to dry wall? Job Ideal as second "income" for already established assistant, possibly with famous "author".

Looks count. Don't think that they don't. Authors are not very attractive. They require attractive assistants. If you are attractive you're not a real author. This is one of the rules about being an author. It's in the secret handbook, right next to other authors phone numbers, favourite dishes, and addresses, so you can go to their houses and get contacts. This job requires a proficiency in making sedatives so that author may take them to supermodel parties is desirable. Cage building and welding experience is also desirable. Please advise if you have experience keeping live animals. Must have pleasant phone manner.

Please understand, you will not receive co-author status. You will not become your own author. Your ideas and your hard work are all that is sought. You will be well admired and loved as intellectual slave labour, but you will not be able to use this position as a stepping stone to success as an author. There is no ladder to success. This job is good for those without any self esteem. The handbook advises me to add that.

Thank you.

Comments

( 40 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 12:35 am (UTC)
She's also his wife. Sounds like a horrible relationship, but maybe it isn't.

"I look forward to the many lawsuits brought against authors from now on for doing research and acknowledging their sources"

There's doing research and there's cribbing. Baigent and Leigh may not have any claim to money from Brown, but Brown doesn't have much claim to the money he's earned either. The scenario exposes how bogus the legal mechanisms for protecting IP are.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 12:59 am (UTC)
i read that as his wife and assistant were two different people, myself.

as for the research/cribbing scenario, its not going to be very clear. the line is very thin, really, and you could argue that even the stink of an idea in there is stealing an intellectual property.which puts literature as a whole on a very shaky foundation, really.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:07 am (UTC)
"Brown countered that neither he nor his wife and assistant Blythe"

No way - Blythe and wife are one and the same.

Compare it to music, I guess. A lot of creative endeavours reuse other material in an uncreative way, so one has to question the ethical side of giving the recycler/cannibal/tomb-robber 100% IP rights over the "new" creation.

In Brown's case his (or Blythe's?) contribution seems to have been recognising that a particular preexisting storyline (Jesus/Magdalene/Prieure de Sion etc.) had the controversial potential to sell books, and then repackaging that storyline inside a page-turning thriller of relatively poor quality. Does he really deserve $BIGNUM for that?
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:37 am (UTC)
yeah, i guess you may be right about the wife/assistant. damn. i should've listed marriage proposals accepted in my want ad.

anyhow, as is said below, i think it's more a case of using a non fiction and fiction book here. brown used a bit of history for his fictional account--which is hardly a unique thing. that the history was controverisal is besides the point. it was presented as a fact by the writers of the non fiction, and brown used it as that within his novel.

of course, he doesn't deserve the money his made from the book, but then who does deserve that kind of cash?
exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:10 am (UTC)
From my point of view, the authors of the source work published their work as non-fiction, as history. Brown's novel was fiction set within that "history", which I think is perfectly acceptable. You have moral ownership of the stories you create, but you don't have moral ownership of the facts of history.

If the first book had been published as fiction, that would have been an entirely different matter, and clear plagiarism.

If Dan Brown's book had been published as non-fiction, not properly acknowledging the source, it would have been clear plagiarism.

What actually happened is quite different.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:37 am (UTC)
"You have moral ownership of the stories you create"

Perhaps, but the point is that a fair whack of the story wasn't devised by Brown at all but (it is argued by Baigent and Leigh) cribbed from HBHG. Which as a book doesn't really concern itself much with the facts of history, unless you believe Jesus and Mary Magdalene actually did have a family together which was protected and hidden down through history by secretive organisations. It's more tendentious conjecture masquerading as history ...

When you consider the amount of money involved you have to question whether Brown has a "moral right" to it.
exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:48 am (UTC)
Which as a book doesn't really concern itself much with the facts of history

They published it as non-fiction, so however far from factual it may be, we have to take them at their word that they intended it to be treated as a history, not as an imaginative work. That it's financially convenient now for them to admit they made it up is irrelevant.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:49 am (UTC)
That raises interesting questions for books that give every appearance of being true when they are, in fact, fictional. Which includes quite a lot of gimmicky fiction.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:54 am (UTC)
not really. there's usually a very clear line between fact and fiction, as was the case with both these books. when that line is blurred, as with the recent thing with j t leroy (the guy oprah backed, if i've misspelt) then people get real bent out of shape. that's when all sorts of bad blood is caused.

it might be worth noting that, generally speaking, non-fiction sells a whole lot more than fiction. which in a very cynical, mercenary side, might explain the why the book was sold as non-fiction in the first place.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 03:18 am (UTC)
"there's usually a very clear line between fact and fiction"

That's a bit dubious. Something like HBHG is more like, say The Case For Christ, simply telling a story and then unearthing a heap of tangentially related facts that happen to appear to corroborate it, but not conclusively. That doesn't mean that the life of Christ isn't fiction.

The bit that Brown cribbed (if he did) wasn't the fact, but the probably-fictional conjecture. Do books have an official classification as fiction or non-fiction (don't know this one).
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 03:38 am (UTC)
i think you're getting too caught up in the subject matter of HBHG. it doesn't matter if you think it's fictional, or not based in fact, or that it's a dicey theory. none of this matters. no history, no non fiction book is purely objective, anyway. there will always be subjective formations, there will always be people who can follow one piece of 'history' more than another.

however, the fact is that hbhg has presented itself as fact. that it may make a leap for a conclusion, or something like that, is beyond the point. it's sold as non-fiction, a line down the middle that says the authors did research, that they can back up their reasoning, that they are presenting it to you as something real to think about. brown, far as i know, has never said that about his book, since he knows that it's fiction. the line is pretty clear, at least to me.

books do have an official classification, though not all hold them. check the front inside flaps and see the classification part. a lot say fiction or non fiction as needed.

the funny side of this, however, is how many church people got bent out of shape over brown's fiction, but no one seemed overly concerned with HGHB.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 03:59 am (UTC)
"no history, no non fiction book is purely objective, anyway"

That's more or less my point, since what you've been saying is "of course it's different because one's presented as fact and the other as fiction".

I'm not going to get too worked up about it, it's just that I would say that because fiction inevitably contains "factual" content, and non-fiction inevitably contains conjecture, hypothesis and subjective matter outside of pure fact, the proposition that it's OK for writers of what is termed fiction to take material arbitrarily from writers of what is termed non-fiction, provided they acknowledge it, is shaky.

Particularly in a case like this where what is cribbed is not the facts, but the rather creative conjecture.

I don't think anyone's too upset about HBHG now given it first appeared in in '82. However since then it's been subject to criticism along the lines that it is wholly fictional and concocted, as the "ever reliable" Wikipedia entry indicates.

"Response from mainstream historians and academics, however, was all but universally negative. Critics argued that the bulk of the claims, mysteries and conspiracies presented as fact were concocted by the authors, making Holy Blood a work of pseudohistory."

So as far as morality, as opposed to legality is concerned, the "creators" of important aspects of Brown's storyline including the role of the Priory of Sion in protecting the descendants of Jesus were people other than Brown. So what he has done is not that different to me turning around and writing a book based on an identical premise in ten years' time, with a couple of dozen close points of reference. *shrug*
exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 04:35 am (UTC)
If I write a story based on the premise that [some religion you don't believe in] is true and follow through the implications for a character in the afterlife, is that stealing the work of the creators of that religion?

If I write a story that follows a character fighting in World War II, and the story is more driven by the broad arc of the conflict than by the details of the character's life, is that stealing from the historians who wrote up the facts and their interpretations of World War II?

What if it turns out that I relied on a book which got some dates wrong? What if I relied on a book in which a historian had deliberately made up certain dates to make a more convincing case for what they saw as the driving factors behind a battle? Would that make my story plagiarism?
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:10 am (UTC)
Why not? It's widely acknowledged that a lot of creative work is a collage of ideas, material and techniques taken from a variety of sources. "Plagiarism" is one pejorative way of describing this and is usually most serious when it either exactly duplicates existing work (not relevant in this case), or when existing work is not acknowledged.

What I'm getting at is that the real issue is one of financial compensation for work, and that in many cases the recognised "author" of a work is only one contributor to its eventual value in the marketplace. That understood makes it strange that only the recognised author should expect to be compensated.

In as much as if Brown had ripped off a fictional work (say as Graham Swift was accused, more tenuously, of having done to Faulkner with Last Orders a few years ago) he would have been "guilty", I don't really see where he's "not guilty" for ripping off a work that may present as "historical non-fiction" but obviously contains a great deal of fictional conjecture.

In short: IP law is broken, and the mechanisms by which artists in any medium are compensated for their work are not particularly in line with any "moral" assessment of either their artistic contribution to their work or the effort they put into it.
exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:26 am (UTC)
In my view, plagiarism is not simply a pejorative way of describing drawing on other sources. Plagiarism is a (moral if not legal) crime of claiming credit for work that is not your own. The authors of "Holy Grail" gave up their moral right to credit for their creative work when they presented it as a work of fact rather than fiction (itself an immoral thing to do if they knew it was fiction).
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:38 am (UTC)
But they didn't present their conjectures as facts, merely as conjectures that were difficult to refute from within a framework of facts which they presented. That isn't just splitting hairs, either.

There's not necessarily a huge categorical distinction between a work of fact+conjecture like HBHG and a work of fact+storyline like the speculative historical novel Tiberius by Allan Massie.

You may not agree with me (I sense you don't :-)) but I think it's nuts to say that authors of non-fiction containing creative/unsubstantiated elements sign over all moral right to their speculations and ideas whereas authors of fiction with a historical component do not. The line you want to draw isn't really there ...
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 06:28 am (UTC)
but I think it's nuts to say that authors of non-fiction containing creative/unsubstantiated elements sign over all moral right to their speculations and ideas whereas authors of fiction with a historical component do not. The line you want to draw isn't really there ...

well, i got to disagree and say it is. since the idea was presented as part of a debate, or to further a factualness of some concept, and this was taken into concern with brown's book, why should the authors of that original get any compensation? they achieved what they wanted, which was to present their argument into a public form, to have it taken up, and to have it tossed round. what's more, it's not like brown ignored the book--he apparently references it quite clearly as an influence.

this happens all the time. for example, i wrote a story a while back that used the idea that stalin had put a contract out on john wayne's life, whcih was apparently a story that orson welles used to tell people. now, i built an entire story round this premise--is it plagiarism? should i owe part of my money to the articles i read on it? how about the research i did on wayne himself? or welles? since, as we agree, there's nothing objective about non-fiction, and we allow that there's nothing to prove that such a contract did exist... have i stolen someone's intellectual property? after all, it was my idea to form a story around it, just as it was brown's idea to use it within the fictional narrative he made. the tone,t he pacing,t he characterisation, the beats of the story, they're all mine--but the idea i freely riffed off the article.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 09:16 am (UTC)
Why not? Why not compensate an author of a work used as a reference, at least in part, based on how many citations they get and how many times those citations are in turn read? Well, actually, that has obvious practical problems, but I don't see how the moral argument for an author to be compensated for the influence of their work on other works holds less water than any other argument set out in terms of being original or derivative.

Now. I'm not arguing in favour of crazy IP rights over everything, I'm pointing out that the different treatment being demanded here for works of fiction and works of non-fiction is absurd. On one hand, you're saying there's no clear line between fiction and non-fiction, because non-fiction is never objective and never free from concocted content, and on the other you're basing your argument on there being a clear line which allows us to police the principle that works cribbed from non-fiction are not subject to litigation, but works cribbed from fiction are. So which is it? And what about works like HBHG, marketed as conjecture+historical-fact, turning out to be conjecture+historical-fact+deliberate-lies-and-oversights, and so clearly not falling into the category of objective historical or observational data?

You ask "have I stolen someone's intellectual property?". In some sense you have. Just as their own work stole, and all works steal. The whole point about property is being able to enforce certain types of financial relationships, same goes for IP. It's so you get paid. But the current system, which in an ordinary case accords someone like Dan Brown 100% of the credit for the "creative process" behind his novels, is flawed. Because he didn't come up with half of that creative process himself, he took it from someone else.

And yes, why not say you "owe" Welles something? As far as I can see you owe him something as much as a film studio owes the guy who pitches them a movie idea, gets rejected, and then sees them develop his idea with consulting him or involving him in any way. Even what you say about tone, pacing, characterisation, beats, etc. - you'd be hard put to prove that they actually belong to you.

It's an extreme view, I'll admit, but it's in contrast to another extreme: the idea that the moment you put a "fiction writer" cap on, every word you type becomes a creation exclusively your own.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 10:58 am (UTC)
On one hand, you're saying there's no clear line between fiction and non-fiction, because non-fiction is never objective and never free from concocted content, and on the other you're basing your argument on there being a clear line which allows us to police the principle that works cribbed from non-fiction are not subject to litigation, but works cribbed from fiction are. So which is it?

you're letting your distaste for the HGHB book get into this. (if it's distate you have, or you just think it's ridiculous, i'm not sure.) i agree with you that non-fiction is never objective and never free from a form of conjecture. just read a biography where scenes are recreated. but at the same time there remains a line between this and fiction, and that is its intent. fiction aims to create a believable world, but does not require you to believe in it outside the book. non fiction aims to make a believable argument. the line is policeable by its intent. if you suggest an argument that you believe is true, even if it is dicey, you cannot then turn around and complain when that argument is used partially within a work of fiction to aid in the creation of a sense of disbelief.

i think the problem here is you're caught up in the idea that you can be the sole creator of anything. that every thought, every word, everything you do can be yours one hundred percent. but, to my mind, it doesn't work that way. we learn language by hearing it. we recycle words. we recycle phrases. we recycle ideas. they alter, they change, they don't. but we recycle them. every idea we put forward is not new. it is the culmination of a thousand of unseen influences, poking, stabbing, cycled, rebreathed, reworded. there is no purity chamber from which we can create a pure, undiluted piece of work.

intellectual property, as in a pure idea, is a nothing, really. people have ideas all the time. take my example of stalin putting a contract on wayne. you're right: at a very basic level, i nicked it. but i acknowledge that. however,t he difference is that i took this idea, crafted characters, tone, pacing, everything that comes from me, onto that idea. (of course, all my knowledge of characters, tone, pacing, whatever, comes from other writers, and other books, so you could feesibly trace back to those authors to offer them the credit--but that wild collection, whoever they were, would then have a selection of influences you would have to discover, and so on and so forth.)

however, it is not difficult to prove that writing craft belongs to a writer. it's a fingerprint. it's like dna. study it enough and its leads back to the individual, and that is why wholesale copying, proper plagiarism, where you pass someone elses work off as your own, is not to be done.

the idea of stalin putting a contract out is not a piece of work. it is simply an idea. like saying, 'i'm going to the shops this afternoon.' the idea that jesus and mary whatnot fucked, had kids, and lived, that's just an idea. however, how that idea is applied within the context of the work, the resonance of it, the way it influences the larger plot, that's all the mark of brown's work. if someone simply took that and wrote a new novel and called it THE SECRET LIFE OF JESUS, then brown himself would have cause to sue for plagiarism.

i dunno, is this making sense? are we just going to have to agree to disagree?
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 11:20 am (UTC)
Well, having read HBHG a while back, I can assure you it is pretty ridiculous. Sort of like one of those books saying it's found where King Arthur's grave is.

"i think the problem here is you're caught up in the idea that you can be the sole creator of anything. that every thought, every word, everything you do can be yours one hundred percent."

Well, actually, that's sort of the opposite of what I've been saying. "Just as their own work stole, and all works steal." etc.

I find two ideas to disagree with here. Not your ideas specifically, just the things that appear to be accepted principles with which I do not concur.

Firstly that anyone is the sole creator of anything when it comes to writing. Which is the claim that is, perhaps, implied by the idea that in the case of most fiction it is only the author who gets royalties from sales as a creative agent.

Secondly that there is anything other than received wisdom behind the idea that fiction writing is, in some sense more the property of the writer in all cases than non-fiction writing is. And so dealing with it requires different laws and different ethics.

By which reasoning Baigent/Leigh's case is absurd, whereas (for example) Grant Morrison bringing a suit against the Wachowskis over the eighty points of reference between The Invisibles and The Matrix is not.

The most common reaction I see to this case is "Baigent and Leigh are suing? What's next: will OUP sue us for using the English language?", but my reaction was more like: "Seems fair, Brown got out of about ten years of hard graft researching his premise by ripping off their material".

Just in general, I think the whole notion of intellectual property and the way the financial gains from creations are distributed to creators is broken.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 11:37 am (UTC)
Firstly that anyone is the sole creator of anything when it comes to writing. Which is the claim that is, perhaps, implied by the idea that in the case of most fiction it is only the author who gets royalties from sales as a creative agent.

this is, i think, because the author does the hard work of forging those ideas into a unified whole. it's not an easy thing to do, and a very difficult thing to do well. the problem here, i think, is that you've limited what it is that a writer does, and just how much more is required from an author to make an idea work.

Secondly that there is anything other than received wisdom behind the idea that fiction writing is, in some sense more the property of the writer in all cases than non-fiction writing is. And so dealing with it requires different laws and different ethics.

it's not, but the intent is different. fiction does not seek to become an educational tool, whereas non fiction, by its desire to illuminate new ideas and concepts, does. there are even more differences between the two, and as such, they require different approaches. just cause they use paper and words doesn't make them the same thing, so why view them as such?

brown didn't rip off HBHC, or whatever it is, he simply used it as a resource. it had influence. he cited it. isn't this part of what non-fiction exists for?

personally, thought the morrison suing of THE MATRIX was ridiculous. i thought gibson has a lot more to argue, since one of his characters was essentially lifted from NEUROMANCER (trinity). but the cases are not identical, at any rate, because the matrix guys didn't openly cite THE INVISIBLES as a reference. from them, it looked more like stealing, at least in argument.
ataxi
Mar. 16th, 2006 12:51 am (UTC)
"this is, i think, because the author does the hard work of forging those ideas into a unified whole. it's not an easy thing to do, and a very difficult thing to do well. the problem here, i think, is that you've limited what it is that a writer does, and just how much more is required from an author to make an idea work."

Not really ... I have a great deal of respect for the difficulty of synthesising a diverse range of ideas, textures, facts, histories into one coherent whole. But I'd say that a writer composing a "non-fiction" survey of some field of interest does just that. If they add a significant proportion of conjecture straight out of their own minds, the line between what they've done and "fiction" is even less clear, though I would argue that it's already sufficiently unclear to be an unsuitable basis for legal principles.

"it's not, but the intent is different. fiction does not seek to become an educational tool, whereas non fiction, by its desire to illuminate new ideas and concepts, does."

Some fiction (one might say, in particular sf) seeks to educate, and popular non-fiction definitely seeks to entertain. I don't see how an sf writer can say fiction has no "desire to illuminate new ideas and concepts". That's the leitmotif of the so-called "literature of ideas".

Quite often, an sf novel does consist of something similar to a survey of ideas in one field or another. e.g. Permutation City as a survey of ideas about copied consciousness.

Still not buying it, in other words :-)

Just as an addendum, I certainly don't suggest that writers shouldn't get paid for what they do. I just don't think copyright, royalties and the threat of litigation for unduly derivative works really builds a just system of compensation. It's merely one that works to some extent, but it's almost the crudest solution that can be contemplated. Imagine how many great authors could be supported with the cash that Brown and J.K Rowling have happily tucked away over the past few years ...
benpeek
Mar. 16th, 2006 11:51 am (UTC)
But I'd say that a writer composing a "non-fiction" survey of some field of interest does just that.

sure. and that survey often takes into account fictional accounts, as well. it's not a one way street.

Some fiction (one might say, in particular sf) seeks to educate, and popular non-fiction definitely seeks to entertain.

educate is a bad word choice on my part. i should have stuck with illuminate. yet, however, a fiction does serve a different interest, in that it aims to present a sealed off world. one in which events happen in its contained boundaries. non-fiction does not do this, least in my mind.

Quite often, an sf novel does consist of something similar to a survey of ideas in one field or another. e.g. Permutation City as a survey of ideas about copied consciousness.

sure, but are you saying egan should have given royalties to those who have done work on copied consciousness? what about those who wrote about copied consciousness, building their non fiction work off the back of another author in the field? do they owe money? you could argue that egan simply continued a conversation in the field, buidling upon existing work to further his own ideas and theories. does this mean, then, that fields of knowledge can not advance unless every author is compensated for their ideas?

as for the cash of rowling and brown... i dunno. who cares? i think your idea of derivativeness is missing an acknowledgement of how people learn and process new information. we're all deriviative. if brown and rowling were to compensate, and then someone like me was also made to compensate... well, i'd be in debt, and they'd be a little less richer :)

exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 05:48 am (UTC)
Another point to consider is that nonfiction content is usually not created for profit. Learned historical texts, scientific articles and philosophical treatese rarely bring financial gain to their authors, except insofar as their strengthen our careers. The money to be made in nonfiction is in pop science, pop history and pop philosophy books. These very rarely contain much if any original content in terms of the ideas presented (unless, as in this case, it's made up). They draw freely on the original material presented in academic articles and reference works, and I don't think anyone resents that. The original contribution and the value of these books is in the way they are expressed and presented. And that isn't what's been copied in this case.
ataxi
Mar. 15th, 2006 06:06 am (UTC)
Sure. However I'm making my argument in terms of the original/conjectural/created substance of works termed non-fiction, not the collation and repackaging of the information in those works. And it's clearly the former part of HBHG which Brown is accused of copying.
exp_err
Mar. 15th, 2006 09:17 pm (UTC)
Would it be different if HBHG had been a series of scholarly articles instead of a book?
ataxi
Mar. 16th, 2006 12:56 am (UTC)
Not really. I'd still stand by the idea that Baigent and Leigh's right to compensation from Brown is in the same league as his own right to compensation for writing his book.

Actually, by bringing up scholarly articles you turn my mind to scientific research, where it's certainly possible to claim intellectual property rights over the results of scholarly activity. You use patents for that. Technically they're supposed to be for "inventions" but it's possible to patent some things that are effectively "discoveries".
exp_err
Mar. 16th, 2006 12:57 am (UTC)
Few things. The vast majority of scientific ideas are not patented or patentable.
ataxi
Mar. 16th, 2006 01:30 am (UTC)
That's true: however, for example, gene sequences and proteins are. Provided you're the first to document them, i.e. the only requirement is that they be novel in the scientific literature. You don't actually have to have a commercialisable application for them either.
exp_err
Mar. 16th, 2006 02:05 am (UTC)
True. But even then, a patent doesn't stop anyone else from writing about your discovery, or profiting from writing about it.
ashamel
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:05 am (UTC)
I likes it.

Though (being a pedantic bugger), I'll mention Stephen King has an assistant who does seem to be using the relationship to further her own writing.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:38 am (UTC)
who is king's assistant?
ashamel
Mar. 15th, 2006 02:09 am (UTC)
Robin Furth. She was hired to go through the Dark Tower series to make sure all the continuity was right, but has been doing a variety of other things as well. (Here's an interview.)

Of course, he has all sorts of other people to help handle business affairs, fan mail and all. He remains a busy lad.
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 02:12 am (UTC)
it's a whole business being stephen king, it appears.
girliejones
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:33 am (UTC)
I've always just wanted a wife, myself. You know - the 1950s type who irn your underwear and keep your dinner warm and stuff,
benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:38 am (UTC)
...damn, i should've listed that.
girliejones
Mar. 15th, 2006 01:39 am (UTC)
rewrite!! rewrite!!
kazzibee
Mar. 15th, 2006 02:37 am (UTC)
Haha the bit about plagiarism is enticing. But pleasant phone manner is a toughy. Throw in "available for afternoon Gin and Tonics" and I will consider the position (al)most seriously.

benpeek
Mar. 15th, 2006 03:03 am (UTC)
sure. afternoon gin and tonics. morning too. midday. midnight. lots of gin and tonics. gotta get those ideas from somewhere.
kazzibee
Mar. 15th, 2006 03:05 am (UTC)
Yes! I distinctly remember a gin&tonic once telling me that I am a genius.
( 40 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )