December 14, 2021 • 32 mins
This week we fondly look back at Frankfurt 2021 with special guest, literary agent, and host of the Make Books Travel podcast, Marleen Seegers; an opinion piece by TRF agent Kathryn Willms on receiving passes; and our first in-house panel discussion on the Bad Art Friend drama, made famous by Robert Kolker in the NYT magazine, featuring editor Diane Terrana, agent Natalie Kimber, brand manager Anne Sampson, and moderated by Kathryn Willms.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:05):
Welcome back to Asia provocateur, season two, we know
you missed us and man, we missedyou too.
So this week we have a look backat Frankfurt, the first major
book there to return to inperson meeting.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
So you could really get into the subject matter.
It wasn't just like, oh, here'sthree titles, bam,
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Bam, bam, agent Catherine.
Wilms on the most ubiquitousthing in our work and yours
rejections, AKA passes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We put that little proposal or manuscript gently
into our outbox and we say, goforth with the proposal, fly
Speaker 1 (00:41):
And tackling or trying to, at least the issues
brought up by bad art friend.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
It's pure evil.
Only one person made money offany of this.
And he got away.
Scott free.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
It's been a few months now since the Frankfurt
book fair and this year wasdifferent because of COVID and
Canada being the guest of honor,two years in a row, it was a
highlight for us as one of thefew agents from north America
who attended.
So we arranged this panel tolook back the Frankfurt book
fair.
Uh, this is kind of apostmortem.
(01:19):
So with me today is our ownrights manager, Millie Ruggiero.
Hi Millie.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi.
Good.
Good to see you again.
And we have a special guest whois Marlene Seagers from two CS
agency.
Hi Marlene.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Hi Sam.
Thank you for having me
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Great to have you here.
So I'm gonna with this Canadathing because I think it's
interesting.
Um, do you feel like theattendees now have a better
sense of Canadian writers andCanada's place in, in the
international book world?
Uh, let's start with Marlene.
Oh, all right.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
um, uh, I've
definitely noticed in actually
the buildup of, uh, what wassupposed to be and what still
was Canada, the, um, FBM 20, 20,a lot of interest, an increase
of interest for Canadian authorsand, and I've especially noticed
, um, like an increase ininterest in like
underrepresented voices fromCanada, like first nation
(02:17):
authors, um, amongst others.
Um, so Canada was on a lot ofpeople's minds also of, because
of that.
And everybody just, uh, was, wasrooting for this year to, to
actually happen, which it didalbeit smaller.
But, uh, so I'm, I'm very happyabout that.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Thank you.
So that means our diplomaticefforts are working to promote
Canada, the brand and Millie.
We were together at the rightsfactory table, but I didn't, I
knew know you went out because,you know, I'm at that age where
I get tired and you're, you'renot, and I know that you were
out talking to people.
How, what was your sense of how,uh, was there a shift in how
Canada was perceived or was itkind of like, oh, it's Canada,
(02:57):
they're just gonna they're thesame as before.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
No, I think there was like lots of initiatives also
going on with the Canadaperspective anyway, because I, I
saw also for the charter bookfair, they actually did some
kind of, uh, initiative therefor, for Canada anyway, for
writers and as well as, aspublishers.
So I think there will be lots ofthings going on going on for
(03:24):
writers and the publishers and,uh, for agencies as well.
So I think there is a reallygood sense of that.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
So do, so do you think it worked, is there a
bigger awareness now?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Yes.
It worked, it worked, yes.
There is a bigger awareness.
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
um, so
one of the well things I liked
and I know other people, uh, Ispoke to like this too, was the
casualness and the comfort ofit.
Um, you know, rather than thecraziness of people running
around, being late for meetingsand pitching each other on the
fly on the way to a meeting, youknow, how did you find it like
this year?
Did you enjoy I the kind ofquietness, even though I'm not
(04:01):
sure it was that quiet for you,but I wanna hear about it.
And, and were you excited ordisappointed in the attendance?
Um, so Marlene first.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah.
So indeed.
We, we, we did have, uh, both mycolleague, Chris and I, uh, who
were there.
We had two tables.
We, we did have quite a fewmeetings.
I think it was also, um, youknow, we celebrated a or 10th
anniversary this year at thefair.
So we had flags and balloons andwe even had two bottles of
champagne that were offered tous.
(04:29):
And, um, and it was, yeah, Imean, as you say, it was, it was
a lot quieter.
Um, I mean just a space that wehad, we actually saw the color
of the carpets on the floor ofthe aged center and also of, of
the funk for the ho.
Um, and, uh, but it was, I mean,all the meetings they just
started, everybody was just sograteful to be there.
(04:52):
So going into a meeting withthat dynamic is just so pleasant
and, um, it was, there was thisgreat feeling of we made it, we
are still here.
And, um, so, so that just bringsthis, this great, um, yeah.
Connection already, even beforeyou start pitching titles or
(05:13):
talking about like what what'sbeen going on in their lives for
the last 18 months, the, youknow, everything was just, um,
much more focused, much moreconcent rated.
Um, the buzz there's usually,there's like a huge buzzing
background noise.
That's always there that makesyou have to basically scream at
people.
And the more you go into theweek, the less voice you have
(05:34):
left over, you know?
So I always that's
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Voice, that's kind of the, it's true.
You get that Frankfurt flu, theycall it, but that's because
there's a thousand people in theright center usually.
Right.
Exactly.
And, and now is like maybe ahundred at the most at, at that
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Time.
Yeah.
So you could just really takeyour time, speak at a regular
volume level, um, and, andreally have profound meetings.
You could really get into thesubject matter.
It wasn't just like, oh, here'sthree titles, bam, bam, bam.
And then they had to go off totheir next meeting and it didn't
wanna be late.
No, it was all very, um, veryefficient and very, very
(06:09):
pleasant.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Okay.
And Millie, I was with you for alot of the meetings and you
seemed to be really enjoying therelaxed.
So how did you find it comparedto previous frankfurts?
I guess
Speaker 4 (06:19):
I think it gives actually a very positive restart
anyway, because we all neededto, to have this kind of
situation again, like going backto the Frankfurt book fairs
thing, there, meeting all thepeople we actually know and are
in contact with.
And it was after two years ofpandemic where we were confined
(06:41):
at home and just staying there.
And it was very impossible tosee people like in person stay.
So it was, I think I had thiskind of feeling in a very
positive way to reconnect withpeople and stay all together and
especially be in the publishingenvironment again as a book fair
anyways.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Awesome.
Okay.
So, um, uh, last question, butnot least.
So I noticed this year, lastyear, it was a bit of a weird
situation because they canceledthe fair people, moved to online
and they said we can save, it'llmove online.
And half the people didn't goonline.
And, and the other half did thisyear, they kind of planned it to
be a hybrid fair from thebeginning.
(07:22):
And I noticed that peoplestarted booking meetings in
September, you know, that werevirtual and, and the pitching
period, instead of it being likethat week in person, the
pitching now has extended tolike a few months between
virtual and physical.
So I guess my question is, howdid this work for you?
(07:42):
And do you think this is thefuture of Frankfurt and other
book fairs?
So let's start with that.
Um, Marlene, let's go back toyou then.
Mm.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Um, yeah.
So first of all, I, I made apoint out of not taking any
meetings in September.
I just.
I, I, um, I, I did a, like, Ithink a two month, uh, meeting
virtual
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Run.
Oh my God.
IM so impressed.
I said by your negotiationskills
Speaker 2 (08:06):
I said, let's
meet in October rather.
And I knew there was, uh, therewas going to be quite a bit of
meetings and intense meetings.
So I just wanted to spare myselfand get to Europe in a relative
of good, you know, fit state ready to not burn out.
Yeah, exactly.
And I, what I usually do is, uh,actually I, I do travel to
(08:31):
Europe, uh, around the Frankfurtand London book fairs for five
to six weeks already.
So for me, it has never beenjust, you know, constricted to
the one week of meetings at theFrank foot book fair.
Um, and, uh, I, what I, what Iused to do was I had a week of
meetings in Amsterdam, a week ofmeetings with 10 days in Paris.
Oh my
Speaker 1 (08:49):
God.
I, I love the
Speaker 2 (08:50):
European tour.
exactly the Europeanit's like
Speaker 1 (08:53):
London, Paris for grid.
Like there's the whole list
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Of, uh, the good thing is though that all those
meetings were all in person.
So you don't have that zoomfatigue that kind of sneaks up
on you.
Um, and so I think what willhappen next year is now I have
the, um, the opportunity andI'm, I'm fortunate enough to, to
have, um, a team to, it hasgrown in the last couple of
(09:15):
years.
So I am actually during thepandemic, I grew a lot more, um,
attached to where I live inCalifornia, small town called
OHI.
And I, I really just the idea ofbeing on the road for five to
six weeks on in a row is lessappealing to me now.
And at the same time I have thisgreat team that has stepped up.
So they will be able to takeover, uh, some trips of mine,
(09:38):
for instance, Chris, um, she nowsells into France, so she's
definitely gonna go visitParisian publishers and, and
elsewhere, they're not just inParis.
Um, and, uh, I have, now we havelike an in-house Italian
co-agent, so she meets withpublishers in Italy.
So I already can like, let go ofthat.
And so I will probably stilltravel to Europe for like three
(09:58):
weeks or so.
And, um, but not tho not thoselong meetings anymore.
And then probably what has, Idon't know what if that's the
same for you, but it's, it's alot easier now for me to just
propose like, Hey, let's have aphone call or let's have a zoom
meeting just like at randommoment, we don't have to
necessarily wait anymore untilthere is an actual book fair.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
And so I'm probably, I feel like that's a post
pandemic benefit.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Yeah.
So I'm probably going to do moreof those random in between
meetings and then like, uh, aconcentrated trip to Europe, uh,
for, for three weeks aroundFrankfurt around London seems
better to stay put.
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Okay.
And so, Millie, uh, what's yoursense?
I mean, I know you had a lot ofvirtual meetings cuz you
embraced this whole thing inSeptember and, and what do you
think like do, do you feel likewith the, were you burnt out
from it?
Did you have zoom fatigue or howdid it go with the combination
of virtual and
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Physical?
I think as Marlin said before,it is, it's good that now we
have the chance actually to, tomeet people virtually when
anytime we want anyway, we need,especially.
But I think, I dunno, we, we had in September since
September, like almost twomonths of meetings, virtual
meetings and after there was thebook first, so it was very,
(11:16):
sometimes they exhausting andsometimes positive in a positive
way.
So, so I dunno if in, uh, inboth ways, if we have, I think
we have urgencies to get virtualmeetings, we actually very open
to do so, but uh, I think thephysical fair still works kind
of in a better way anyway,especially Franco for London and
(11:40):
the main ones.
Yes.
So I think in this way and uh,because I don't know, I, I'm not
so sure about having two monthsof meetings, it actually gives
you the chance of in workingwell anyways, so I think
it's, uh, yeah, it's better tofocus on the focus physical one
and if we need for an urgentcase to go virtually, we can get
(12:03):
with virtually anyways.
So it's, uh, is in I, this is myopinion, at least.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Well, it's interesting times I just read
that, uh, there's gonna be a, alockdown in, in Austria
and I'm like what's happeningand
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Is happening something strange in Germany as
well.
So
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We, yeah.
And Holland too.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
So we, we don't really know.
I mean, I would, I'm hoping thatwe continue with minimal hybrid
meetings, but maybe there'll beother cancellations if there's
more complications with thepandemic.
I mean, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Yes.
Who knows?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I was just to, to talk about thetwo months of, of meetings.
I, I actually did, um, a podcastrecording last night, um, for,
for my podcast, with ourJapanese go
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Oh, by tell, tell us a bit about your podcast so you
could get, we plug it here.
Oh yeah, sure.
To the cause you, I think youraudience and our audience is
similar.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Yeah, sure.
So, uh, my podcast is called themake books travel podcast.
And it's basically the principleis that I interview anybody who
is involved in making bookstravel.
So that means either from onelanguage to another or from page
to screen or from, um, you know,page to audiobook and, and, um,
it's a very broad, uh, a broadsense of the, the travel part.
(13:15):
And, um, so I've been, and Istarted that in the, in the
first weeks of the, the lockdown, uh, cuz I was just so
frustrated and scared and Iwanna talk to people exactly
like the Mo the London book fair, just got canceled.
Uh, we had no idea what theworld was going to look like,
um, the following day.
Right.
And, uh, so I, I just needed tobe reassured and, and, and
(13:39):
exchange with people.
And I thought if I do that in arecorded way and, um, share it
with, with, uh, the publishingindustry, which is the, the main
, uh, audience I, I think of, ofmy podcast, um, it will be
beneficial for a lot of peopleand, uh, that just turned out to
be, um, I think, um, yeah, justa wonderful, um, um, opportunity
(14:00):
and, um, I'm really enjoying it.
So as I said, I just recordedthe, um, last night, an episode
with our Japanese co-agent andthey haven't traveled also since
, um, you know, March, February,March, and most of their clients
are in the us and the UK, fromwhat I understand.
So, um, she was telling me fromthe it's, um, una Tamaki from
(14:22):
the, the total Mor agency.
I don't know if you work withher or with them, but she was
saying we have, um, we've hadmeetings, like she's, we've just
wrapped up our Frankfurtmeetings.
We're almost at the end ofNovember when we, so I'm like,
my goodness, this is, this iscrazy.
And she's like, yeah.
And sometimes, or often themeetings last until midnight or
(14:44):
Tokyo time.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Oh, their time.
Yeah.
That's why.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
And then sometimes start really early, um, Tokyo
time again, to, uh, so it'syeah.
I, I, I, when I think about myresistance to not have any
meetings in September, I'm like,oh my goodness, how did they,
how did, how did they do this?
And how did they stay sane?
Um, because everything is just,everything is virtual.
Everything has been
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Virtual for, well, they have forest bathing over
there.
They have their, they have theirown ways of self.
Right, right.
Yeah.
okay.
Well, thanks guys.
Thanks milli.
Thanks Marlene.
Thank you.
I will.
I'm hoping to see you guys inLondon again.
Yeah,
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Me too.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Me too.
Okay.
Take care.
Take care.
Bye bye.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Bye.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
What does it take to be a good agent?
According to Katherine Wilmsit's the ability to both give
and receive rejection.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Hello, I'm Katherine and Wilms.
And I'm an associate agent atthe rights factory.
So are you curious about whatwe're talking about today?
Oh, you're thinking of fastforwarding now that you know
it's me.
You're sure it's gonna be good,but it's just not what you're
feeling right now.
Oh, honestly.
That's cool.
I totally understand if you'renot interested.
Thanks for letting me know.
I just really appreciate youeven thinking about at
(16:12):
listening.
That's right.
We're talking about passes.
One thing that no one tells youwhen you become an agent is how
much time you'll spend sayingand hearing no correction.
You will never say or hear.
No, you will say and hear thingsthat mean no, all the time, a
big hurdle in my early agentingdays has been passing on
queries, stories and ideas andcreativity that show up in every
(16:35):
agent's inbox, inquiry managerevery day are incredible.
They're profoundly interestingand different and strange and
inspiring, and then occasionallyracist.
But regardless, every agentknows that it's an act of
vulnerability and courage to putthem out in the world truly.
And then what do we do?
We pass on almost all of them.
because time,effort, money, sometimes
(16:55):
marketplace, and just thecultural and social me.
We swim in that shapes what welike and the ones that we do
take on are the ones that wecan't get out of our heads, or
that we find the mostinteresting or inspiring for
often quite personal reasons orthe ones that come from people
with 500,000 Instagramfollowers.
Those two can be quiteinspiring.
I joke.
And then we take those preciousgems, the stories that we most
(17:18):
want to be books.
And after spending months,sometimes years working with the
author to Polish them, we putthat little proposal or a
manuscript gently into ouroutbox.
And we say, go forth a littleproposal fly.
Well, we, we hit send and then,you know what happens?
Editors have the audacity tosay, no, thank you.
That's right.
They pass actually.
(17:39):
Here's what they really say.
But far more eloquently.
The idea is amazing, but theydidn't quite connect with the
voice.
They love the writing.
They feel it will be hard todifferentiate in the
marketplace.
It's just not quite a fit fortheir list.
For my second ever submission, Ireceived what could only be
called a short essay.
The editor told me shepersonally connected with a
topic.
Great.
She absolutely adore thewriting.
(17:59):
Amazing.
And then she delved into themeaning of the work providing
insights.
I never even considered.
Wow.
I thought, yes, this is what itall means.
And then she passed.
And honestly, I couldn't havebeen happier because it truly
struck me then that I work inthis incredible industry where
just brilliant people who lovebooks, take the time to consider
(18:22):
each proposal on its merits andreally think about it and then
share what they think about it.
Also, they can pass how cool is.
And it just felt like that wasthe ultimate compliment to me as
an agent and to the writer.
Well, not the ultimatecompliment.
That would be an offer
Speaker 1 (18:44):
In October.
The New York times published anarticle that got a lot of buzz.
It was called bad a friend, andit really triggered a lot of
discussion around our office.
This conversation still hasn'tdied down.
So we've convened the veryfirst, all rights factory panel
to discuss it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Hello, I'm Katherine Wilms associate agent from the
rights factory.
We wanted to discuss some of theimplications of that article
because the questions that posesabout appropriation and
plagiarism, the ethics of artand writing communities and
trolling by email signoffs arefar from being resolved.
In fact, they may be some of themost pressing concerns of this
literary and cultural moment.
(19:27):
So let's get into it.
Our first panel is a lovely NatKimber, our New York based
agent.
Hi, next we have TRF editorwriter and podcast breakout
star, Diane Tiran.
Hello, great to be here.
And finally we have TRF brandmanager, extraordinaire, the
brilliant and Sampson.
Hi, so excited to get into this.
So if anyone hasn't read RobertCorker's article, pause and go.
(19:50):
Now we'll see you in hour semibriefly.
It's about two writers at, or atleast aspiring writers who are
part of the same writingcommunity, Don Doland and Sonya
Larson.
Dawn donated a kidney to astranger, shared her story story
on social media with what somefelt was, let's say unconvincing
humility, the supposedlyinspiring story inspired Sonya
(20:10):
to write a short about a whitewoman with a savior complex who
had donated a kidney when Dawnconfronted her about it.
She initially lied.
However, among other things inpublished versions, sinus
character wrote social mediaposts that were identical to
dawns.
The short story gained attentionpublication, and that awards
resulting in an ever escalatingfeud between the writers, Dawn,
(20:30):
arguing that her words had beenPLA rise.
And her story appropriated whileSonya argued, argued, sorry.
Initially at first that she didnot do this.
She did, but also that no onehas ownership over a story.
And that Don was attempting toruin her career and stealing
attention away from theimportant insights on race and
privilege.
The story was making lawsuitsabounded discovery happened in
said, lawsuits, everyone lookedpretty big, bad, sorry, it's a
(20:53):
Sega.
So my first question is if weignore the whole plagiarism
elements and there was noquestion of Sonya copying Dawn's
actual words, is it fair gamefor Sonya to use Don's kidney
donation story in her work?
Can anyone actually ever own astory?
Uh, let's start with Diane.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
Okay.
So, and just to clarify myanswer, I'm referencing
personal, not cultural stories.
And my answer is no.
And here is my short cheekyexplanation.
Artists have always renderedhuman experience in their own
form, music, dance, painting,oral stories, sculptures,
photography, film, and thewritten story.
(21:33):
The book that is a wonderfulthing.
And we are richer for it.
Writers like all artists areinspired by the world around
them saying a writer can't writea story inspired by someone else
is like saying people can't takepicture is of anybody but
themselves.
So just imagine a world whereall the photographs are selfies.
(21:54):
That is a dystopia.
Speaker 6 (21:57):
Diane.
I agree with you completely.
And I think that, um, what, whatcomes uh, with the stakes of
this a are, are that wedefinitely want as much variety.
And with that variety becomesinspiration from others that,
(22:19):
um, allows us to like reallyexpress our feelings.
And in the case of Sonya Larson,she felt incredibly powerful
feelings about what it washappening with, um, the kidney
donor and how, um, she wasreacting to her, um, to her
action, um, of Goodwill and, youknow, using other people's
(22:42):
stories to express our ownfeelings and how they come up
for us can be some of the mostpowerful art that is out there.
Speaker 7 (22:50):
Yeah.
I mean, I would definitely arguethat that that's the job
description of a writer is totake the world that they see
around them and filter itthrough their own lens and to
write about it and to express itfor other people to read, like,
that's the whole point of beinga writer?
Um, I think so.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
So if we all kind of agree that yes, you can write a
story about or inspired bysomeone else, theoretically,
when does it become problematic?
Is it only when it relates toorgan donation?
Um, and do you wanna start usoff on this one?
Speaker 7 (23:22):
Yeah.
So we've been talking about thisearlier and it kind of reminded
me of an interesting kind ofthing that had happened in like
my life, um, where my mother wasan Aboriginal woman who her
family was from Alberta, but shegrew up in Northern Ontario and
she told some kind of likepersonal family stories to a
writer friend of hers who wasreally inspired by them and then
(23:45):
asked my mother's permission toinclude them in a short story
collection.
And my mother said, yes, she wasflattered that she wanted these
stories used.
Um, she credited my mother inthe short story collection.
Um, but at the end of the day,they were stories about, um, an
Aboriginal woman and her familyand she was a white woman
writing about them.
So I feel like, you know,morally, maybe she was in the
(24:07):
clear because she did havepermission to write these
stories, but should she havelike, you know, um, and I,
unfortunately my mother sincepassed away, so I can't actually
ask her, you know, what shefeels about it today.
Um, and you know, this is alsothe 1990s and a 2021 lens is
very different than a, a lens ofthe early nineties.
(24:28):
Um, yeah.
So I think there's definitely aline.
Um, I think that maybe writershave to self-police themselves a
little bit on, on the storiesthat we choose to share.
What do you think, Natalie?
Speaker 6 (24:40):
I think that, um, that line, um, is often crossed
because in the past, no spacewas made for people to tell
their own cultural stories.
And that's where we get thatterm own voices is that, um,
it's one thing for rued Kiplingto write about, you know, people
of color, but it's another thingthat at that time, people of
(25:03):
color, weren't really able towrite their own stories.
And we live in a world now wherewe're making so much space for
everybody to write theircultural backgrounds.
And so when you given space forpeople of indigenous, um, and
other, you know, marginalized or, um, you know, diverse
backgrounds to, to compose theirstories, then why should from,
(25:28):
you know, another space be given, um, kind of priority over, you
know, people to write their ownvoices.
And I think that's where thatargument comes from.
Speaker 5 (25:38):
Yeah.
So, um, this is something thatall writers struggle with now,
uh, as a Canadian writer who,who Annes definitely came here
and colonized this land, uh,writing an indigenous story is
not a line I would crossgenerally.
I still go back to my, myprinciple, which is writers can
(26:03):
write about anything.
Um, they may offend people.
They may upset people.
They be canceled of course, but,um, it, it's a, it's a
principle.
I hope we can come back toeventually when everybody is
telling their own stories.
And then there is the other, theother issue, the what not
crossing a cultural boundary,what's a problematic story.
(26:26):
What's a problem approach towriting.
And I would say that any timeyou want to trash someone or
expose them, and you putdetails, authenticating details
about them personally, in anovel that people will recognize
everywhere you are treadingdangerously.
And, uh, you could be at thevery least called a mean person
(26:47):
and at the worst taken to court.
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Yeah.
I think the devil is definitelyin the details and I think it's
quite easy for, uh, I, I mean, Iwould think it's easy for the
details to be changed enoughthat, um, that those lines are
not crossed.
And clearly there's, people'sfeelings wrapped up in these
stakes, you know, when Larson,you know, took the story, um, of
(27:15):
the donor and, you know, andmade it her own into something
that was, um, you know, tryingto you express rage or
frustration about white saviorcomplex, she was doing something
really important, but becauseshe mucked up the details by
actually plagiarizing and using,um, you know, very strong
(27:37):
specifics where that person wasidentifiable.
Um, she definitely crossed theline and in that crossing the
line, she severely compromisedthe beautiful message that she
was trying to evoke through thisvery compelling story idea.
And I think that's one of themajor stakes that gets brought
into it because it's not just,you know, other people's
(27:58):
feelings and having thetransparency to say, Hey, I
really love your story.
And I'm inspired.
Can I use it for a story of myown, you know, going to that
person and being open about it,but, you know, then, um, not
compromising the integrity ofthe message you're trying to
tell by, you know, reallycrossing the line ethically.
Speaker 7 (28:18):
And I think it could probably be argued like if as,
as a writer, you can't put yourown lens on it and your own,
like, take enough to change thedetails.
Maybe you're not that good of awriter.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah.
I think this is leading usnicely into sort of our next
question is, is what do we owethe people whose stories inspire
artistic, artistic works?
Do we owe them anything?
And, um, you know, my, myinitial thoughts with that is
like, it's kind of a profoundquestion about how to be in the
world.
Um, cuz I think we're agreeinghere that Sonya's FAPA was more
one of etiquette than legalityin a lot of ways.
(28:51):
And you know, she was mockingDawn and it muddied the other
intention of her work, which wasto interrogate privilege and
racism, you know, can you useyour art to settle scores?
Sure.
You, I think you can, but shouldyou, will it help your art?
Um, maybe not.
Speaker 7 (29:04):
Uh, well I was just gonna say, I feel like just as
you know, as a writer isentitled to use the stories that
they see around them.
Those people are entitled toreact in the way that they
react, you know, their reactionthey're fully entitled to, to
feel how they feel about seeingthemselves in a, in a
Speaker 6 (29:20):
Writer's work.
I think in the case of writingsomebody's story, that you are,
you know, connected to somebodywho is an acquaintance or a
friend in a writing group inyour church group, however that
works, you know, just betransparent.
Um, don't be creepy.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
It's a good life lesson um, okay.
So an author comes to you andthey've lifted, they've lifted
all their dialogue for the QAndon character in their novel,
from their uncle's Facebookpage.
What do you do Diane?
Speaker 5 (29:50):
Well, um, just to echo what Anne said earlier, if
you can't, you know, get acrossyour uncle's insanity and uh,
whatever else you want to sayabout him in your own words,
should you even be writing, bevery simple NA
Speaker 6 (30:06):
As an agent, I would absolutely shut it down, you
know, again, if they couldn'twrite it in their own
Speaker 7 (30:13):
Words.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm not an agent, so Iwouldn't really be faced with
this, um, this situation, but Idid have a friend as we were
discussing this, uh, thisarticle who's said, you know, I
don't think internet word vomitis copyright or should be
copyrighted.
Um, and then I had said, well,you know, she was writing in a
group where she thought she waswriting to fellow writers.
(30:33):
Like what's the differencebetween that and writing like,
you know, posting a short storyon a internet forum for other
writers to critique.
Like it was, it was, you know,on a Facebook post, but it was
still her writing.
Like it was still somethingshe'd written as a writer.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I, I have a hot take.
This article is very wellwritten.
And if it says, expect, sorry,expertly constructed.
As I think it is, it's pureevil.
Only one person made money offany of this.
And he got away.
Scott free, the real bad artfriend is Robert Colker.
Oh
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Right.
You deserve a,
Speaker 7 (31:08):
That is fantastic.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Well, thank you everyone.
That was so much fun.
And uh, we'll see you all onslack.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
Fantastic.
Bye.
Bye.
Bye.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
That's a wrap folks.
Thanks for joining us forepisode two of our second
season.
Thanks to our staff, our guestsand Andrew Kaufman, our
producer.
If you like our podcast, pleaseshare your love wherever you
listen and on your socials andlook for us on subst stack.
We'll be back after the holidayswith more Asian provocateur.
Welcome back to Asia provocateur, season two, we know
you missed us and man, we missedyou too.
So this week we have a look backat Frankfurt, the first major
book there to return to inperson meeting.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
So you could really get into the subject matter.
It wasn't just like, oh, here'sthree titles, bam,
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Bam, bam, agent Catherine.
Wilms on the most ubiquitousthing in our work and yours
rejections, AKA passes.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
We put that little proposal or manuscript gently
into our outbox and we say, goforth with the proposal, fly
Speaker 1 (00:41):
And tackling or trying to, at least the issues
brought up by bad art friend.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
It's pure evil.
Only one person made money offany of this.
And he got away.
Scott free.
Speaker 1 (00:58):
It's been a few months now since the Frankfurt
book fair and this year wasdifferent because of COVID and
Canada being the guest of honor,two years in a row, it was a
highlight for us as one of thefew agents from north America
who attended.
So we arranged this panel tolook back the Frankfurt book
fair.
Uh, this is kind of apostmortem.
(01:19):
So with me today is our ownrights manager, Millie Ruggiero.
Hi Millie.
Hi.
Hi.
Hi.
Good.
Good to see you again.
And we have a special guest whois Marlene Seagers from two CS
agency.
Hi Marlene.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Hi Sam.
Thank you for having me
Speaker 1 (01:39):
Great to have you here.
So I'm gonna with this Canadathing because I think it's
interesting.
Um, do you feel like theattendees now have a better
sense of Canadian writers andCanada's place in, in the
international book world?
Uh, let's start with Marlene.
Oh, all right.
Speaker 2 (01:55):
the buildup of, uh, what wassupposed to be and what still
was Canada, the, um, FBM 20, 20,a lot of interest, an increase
of interest for Canadian authorsand, and I've especially noticed
, um, like an increase ininterest in like
underrepresented voices fromCanada, like first nation
(02:17):
authors, um, amongst others.
Um, so Canada was on a lot ofpeople's minds also of, because
of that.
And everybody just, uh, was, wasrooting for this year to, to
actually happen, which it didalbeit smaller.
But, uh, so I'm, I'm very happyabout that.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Thank you.
So that means our diplomaticefforts are working to promote
Canada, the brand and Millie.
We were together at the rightsfactory table, but I didn't, I
knew know you went out because,you know, I'm at that age where
I get tired and you're, you'renot, and I know that you were
out talking to people.
How, what was your sense of how,uh, was there a shift in how
Canada was perceived or was itkind of like, oh, it's Canada,
(02:57):
they're just gonna they're thesame as before.
Speaker 4 (03:01):
No, I think there was like lots of initiatives also
going on with the Canadaperspective anyway, because I, I
saw also for the charter bookfair, they actually did some
kind of, uh, initiative therefor, for Canada anyway, for
writers and as well as, aspublishers.
So I think there will be lots ofthings going on going on for
(03:24):
writers and the publishers and,uh, for agencies as well.
So I think there is a reallygood sense of that.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
So do, so do you think it worked, is there a
bigger awareness now?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Yes.
It worked, it worked, yes.
There is a bigger awareness.
Absolutely.
Speaker 1 (03:39):
and I know other people, uh, Ispoke to like this too, was the
casualness and the comfort ofit.
Um, you know, rather than thecraziness of people running
around, being late for meetingsand pitching each other on the
fly on the way to a meeting, youknow, how did you find it like
this year?
Did you enjoy I the kind ofquietness, even though I'm not
(04:01):
sure it was that quiet for you,but I wanna hear about it.
And, and were you excited ordisappointed in the attendance?
Um, so Marlene first.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Yeah.
So
We, we, we did have, uh, both mycolleague, Chris and I, uh, who
were there.
We had two tables.
We, we did have quite a fewmeetings.
I think it was also, um, youknow, we celebrated a or 10th
anniversary this year at thefair.
So we had flags and balloons andwe even had two bottles of
champagne that were offered tous.
(04:29):
And, um, and it was, yeah, Imean, as you say, it was, it was
a lot quieter.
Um, I mean just a space that wehad, we actually saw the color
of the carpets on the floor ofthe aged center and also of, of
the funk for the ho.
Um, and, uh, but it was, I mean,all the meetings they just
started, everybody was just sograteful to be there.
(04:52):
So going into a meeting withthat dynamic is just so pleasant
and, um, it was, there was thisgreat feeling of we made it, we
are still here.
And, um, so, so that just bringsthis, this great, um, yeah.
Connection already, even beforeyou start pitching titles or
(05:13):
talking about like what what'sbeen going on in their lives for
the last 18 months, the, youknow, everything was just, um,
much more focused, much moreconcent rated.
Um, the buzz there's usually,there's like a huge buzzing
background noise.
That's always there that makesyou have to basically scream at
people.
And the more you go into theweek, the less voice you have
(05:34):
left over, you know?
So I always that's
Speaker 1 (05:36):
Voice, that's kind of the, it's true.
You get that Frankfurt flu, theycall it, but that's because
there's a thousand people in theright center usually.
Right.
Exactly.
And, and now is like maybe ahundred at the most at, at that
Speaker 2 (05:46):
Time.
Yeah.
So you could just really takeyour time, speak at a regular
volume level, um, and, andreally have profound meetings.
You could really get into thesubject matter.
It wasn't just like, oh, here'sthree titles, bam, bam, bam.
And then they had to go off totheir next meeting and it didn't
wanna be late.
No, it was all very, um, veryefficient and very, very
(06:09):
pleasant.
Speaker 1 (06:10):
Okay.
And Millie, I was with you for alot of the meetings and you
seemed to be really enjoying therelaxed.
So how did you find it comparedto previous frankfurts?
I guess
Speaker 4 (06:19):
I think it gives actually a very positive restart
anyway, because we all neededto, to have this kind of
situation again, like going backto the Frankfurt book fairs
thing, there, meeting all thepeople we actually know and are
in contact with.
And it was after two years ofpandemic where we were confined
(06:41):
at home and just staying there.
And it was very impossible tosee people like in person stay.
So it was, I think I had thiskind of feeling in a very
positive way to reconnect withpeople and stay all together and
especially be in the publishingenvironment again as a book fair
anyways.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
Awesome.
Okay.
So, um, uh, last question, butnot least.
So I noticed this year, lastyear, it was a bit of a weird
situation because they canceledthe fair people, moved to online
and they said we can save, it'llmove online.
And half the people didn't goonline.
And, and the other half did thisyear, they kind of planned it to
be a hybrid fair from thebeginning.
(07:22):
And I noticed that peoplestarted booking meetings in
September, you know, that werevirtual and, and the pitching
period, instead of it being likethat week in person, the
pitching now has extended tolike a few months between
virtual and physical.
So I guess my question is, howdid this work for you?
(07:42):
And do you think this is thefuture of Frankfurt and other
book fairs?
So let's start with that.
Um, Marlene, let's go back toyou then.
Mm.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Um, yeah.
So first of all, I, I made apoint out of not taking any
meetings in September.
I just
I, I, um, I, I did a, like, Ithink a two month, uh, meeting
virtual
Speaker 1 (08:02):
Run.
Oh my God.
IM so impressed.
I said by your negotiationskills
Speaker 2 (08:06):
And I knew there was, uh, therewas going to be quite a bit of
meetings and intense meetings.
So I just wanted to spare myselfand get to Europe in a relative
of good, you know, fit state
Yeah, exactly.
And I, what I usually do is, uh,actually I, I do travel to
(08:31):
Europe, uh, around the Frankfurtand London book fairs for five
to six weeks already.
So for me, it has never beenjust, you know, constricted to
the one week of meetings at theFrank foot book fair.
Um, and, uh, I, what I, what Iused to do was I had a week of
meetings in Amsterdam, a week ofmeetings with 10 days in Paris.
Oh my
Speaker 1 (08:49):
God.
I, I love the
Speaker 2 (08:50):
European tour.
Speaker 1 (08:53):
London, Paris for grid.
Like there's the whole list
Speaker 2 (08:55):
Of, uh, the good thing is though that all those
meetings were all in person.
So you don't have that zoomfatigue that kind of sneaks up
on you.
Um, and so I think what willhappen next year is now I have
the, um, the opportunity andI'm, I'm fortunate enough to, to
have, um, a team to, it hasgrown in the last couple of
(09:15):
years.
So I am actually during thepandemic, I grew a lot more, um,
attached to where I live inCalifornia, small town called
OHI.
And I, I really just the idea ofbeing on the road for five to
six weeks on in a row is lessappealing to me now.
And at the same time I have thisgreat team that has stepped up.
So they will be able to takeover, uh, some trips of mine,
(09:38):
for instance, Chris, um, she nowsells into France, so she's
definitely gonna go visitParisian publishers and, and
elsewhere, they're not just inParis.
Um, and, uh, I have, now we havelike an in-house Italian
co-agent, so she meets withpublishers in Italy.
So I already can like, let go ofthat.
And so I will probably stilltravel to Europe for like three
(09:58):
weeks or so.
And, um, but not tho not thoselong meetings anymore.
And then probably what has, Idon't know what if that's the
same for you, but it's, it's alot easier now for me to just
propose like, Hey, let's have aphone call or let's have a zoom
meeting just like at randommoment, we don't have to
necessarily wait anymore untilthere is an actual book fair.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
And so I'm probably, I feel like that's a post
pandemic benefit.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Yeah.
So I'm probably going to do moreof those random in between
meetings and then like, uh, aconcentrated trip to Europe, uh,
for, for three weeks aroundFrankfurt around London seems
better to stay put
Speaker 1 (10:36):
Okay.
And so, Millie, uh, what's yoursense?
I mean, I know you had a lot ofvirtual meetings cuz you
embraced this whole thing inSeptember and, and what do you
think like do, do you feel likewith the, were you burnt out
from it?
Did you have zoom fatigue or howdid it go with the combination
of virtual and
Speaker 4 (10:52):
Physical?
I think as Marlin said before,it is, it's good that now we
have the chance actually to, tomeet people virtually when
anytime we want anyway, we need,especially.
But I think, I dunno, we, we had
September, like almost twomonths of meetings, virtual
meetings and after there was thebook first, so it was very,
(11:16):
sometimes they exhausting andsometimes positive in a positive
way.
So, so I dunno if in, uh, inboth ways, if we have, I think
we have urgencies to get virtualmeetings, we actually very open
to do so, but uh, I think thephysical fair still works kind
of in a better way anyway,especially Franco for London and
(11:40):
the main ones.
Yes.
So I think in this way and uh,because I don't know, I, I'm not
so sure about having two monthsof meetings, it actually gives
you the chance of in workingwell anyways,
it's, uh, yeah, it's better tofocus on the focus physical one
and if we need for an urgentcase to go virtually, we can get
(12:03):
with virtually anyways.
So it's, uh, is in I, this is myopinion, at least.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
Well, it's interesting times I just read
that, uh, there's gonna be a, alockdown in, in Austria
and I'm like what's happeningand
Speaker 4 (12:16):
Is happening something strange in Germany as
well.
So
Speaker 2 (12:18):
We, yeah.
And Holland too.
Speaker 1 (12:21):
So we, we don't really know.
I mean, I would, I'm hoping thatwe continue with minimal hybrid
meetings, but maybe there'll beother cancellations if there's
more complications with thepandemic.
I mean, it's interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:32):
Yes.
Who knows?
Yeah.
Yeah.
I was just to, to talk about thetwo months of, of meetings.
I, I actually did, um, a podcastrecording last night, um, for,
for my podcast, with ourJapanese go
Speaker 1 (12:43):
Oh, by tell, tell us a bit about your podcast so you
could get, we plug it here.
Oh yeah, sure.
To the cause you, I think youraudience and our audience is
similar.
Speaker 2 (12:51):
Yeah, sure.
So, uh, my podcast is called themake books travel podcast.
And it's basically the principleis that I interview anybody who
is involved in making bookstravel.
So that means either from onelanguage to another or from page
to screen or from, um, you know,page to audiobook and, and, um,
it's a very broad, uh, a broadsense of the, the travel part.
(13:15):
And, um, so I've been, and Istarted that in the, in the
first weeks of the, the lockdown, uh, cuz I was just so
frustrated and scared and Iwanna talk to people exactly
like the Mo the London book fair, just got canceled.
Uh, we had no idea what theworld was going to look like,
um, the following day.
Right.
And, uh, so I, I just needed tobe reassured and, and, and
(13:39):
exchange with people.
And I thought if I do that in arecorded way and, um, share it
with, with, uh, the publishingindustry, which is the, the main
, uh, audience I, I think of, ofmy podcast, um, it will be
beneficial for a lot of peopleand, uh, that just turned out to
be, um, I think, um, yeah, justa wonderful, um, um, opportunity
(14:00):
and, um, I'm really enjoying it.
So as I said, I just recordedthe, um, last night, an episode
with our Japanese co-agent andthey haven't traveled also since
, um, you know, March, February,March, and most of their clients
are in the us and the UK, fromwhat I understand.
So, um, she was telling me fromthe it's, um, una Tamaki from
(14:22):
the, the total Mor agency.
I don't know if you work withher or with them, but she was
saying we have, um, we've hadmeetings, like she's, we've just
wrapped up our Frankfurtmeetings.
We're almost at the end ofNovember when we, so I'm like,
my goodness, this is, this iscrazy.
And she's like, yeah.
And sometimes, or often themeetings last until midnight or
(14:44):
Tokyo time.
Speaker 1 (14:46):
Oh, their time.
Yeah.
That's why.
Speaker 2 (14:48):
And then sometimes start really early, um, Tokyo
time again, to, uh, so it'syeah.
I, I, I, when I think about myresistance to not have any
meetings in September, I'm like,oh my goodness, how did they,
how did, how did they do this?
And how did they stay sane?
Um, because everything is just,everything is virtual.
Everything has been
Speaker 1 (15:07):
Virtual for, well, they have forest bathing over
there.
They have their, they have theirown ways of self.
Right, right.
Yeah.
Well, thanks guys.
Thanks milli.
Thanks Marlene.
Thank you.
I will.
I'm hoping to see you guys inLondon again.
Yeah,
Speaker 2 (15:21):
Me too.
Speaker 1 (15:22):
Me too.
Okay.
Take care.
Take care.
Bye bye.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
Bye.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
What does it take to be a good agent?
According to Katherine Wilmsit's the ability to both give
and receive rejection.
Speaker 3 (15:50):
Hello, I'm Katherine and Wilms.
And I'm an associate agent atthe rights factory.
So are you curious about whatwe're talking about today?
Oh, you're thinking of fastforwarding now that you know
it's me.
You're sure it's gonna be good,but it's just not what you're
feeling right now.
Oh, honestly.
That's cool.
I totally understand if you'renot interested.
Thanks for letting me know.
I just really appreciate youeven thinking about at
(16:12):
listening.
That's right.
We're talking about passes.
One thing that no one tells youwhen you become an agent is how
much time you'll spend sayingand hearing no correction.
You will never say or hear.
No, you will say and hear thingsthat mean no, all the time, a
big hurdle in my early agentingdays has been passing on
queries, stories and ideas andcreativity that show up in every
(16:35):
agent's inbox, inquiry managerevery day are incredible.
They're profoundly interestingand different and strange and
inspiring, and then occasionallyracist.
But regardless, every agentknows that it's an act of
vulnerability and courage to putthem out in the world truly.
And then what do we do?
We pass on almost all of them.
(16:55):
marketplace, and just thecultural and social me.
We swim in that shapes what welike and the ones that we do
take on are the ones that wecan't get out of our heads, or
that we find the mostinteresting or inspiring for
often quite personal reasons orthe ones that come from people
with 500,000 Instagramfollowers.
Those two can be quiteinspiring.
I joke.
And then we take those preciousgems, the stories that we most
(17:18):
want to be books.
And after spending months,sometimes years working with the
author to Polish them, we putthat little proposal or a
manuscript gently into ouroutbox.
And we say, go forth a littleproposal fly.
Well, we, we hit send and then,you know what happens?
Editors have the audacity tosay, no, thank you.
That's right.
They pass actually.
(17:39):
Here's what they really say.
But far more eloquently.
The idea is amazing, but theydidn't quite connect with the
voice.
They love the writing.
They feel it will be hard todifferentiate in the
marketplace.
It's just not quite a fit fortheir list.
For my second ever submission, Ireceived what could only be
called a short essay.
The editor told me shepersonally connected with a
topic.
Great.
She absolutely adore thewriting.
(17:59):
Amazing.
And then she delved into themeaning of the work providing
insights.
I never even considered.
Wow.
I thought, yes, this is what itall means.
And then she passed.
And honestly, I couldn't havebeen happier because it truly
struck me then that I work inthis incredible industry where
just brilliant people who lovebooks, take the time to consider
(18:22):
each proposal on its merits andreally think about it and then
share what they think about it.
Also, they can pass how cool is.
And it just felt like that wasthe ultimate compliment to me as
an agent and to the writer.
Well, not the ultimatecompliment.
That would be an offer
Speaker 1 (18:44):
In October.
The New York times published anarticle that got a lot of buzz.
It was called bad a friend, andit really triggered a lot of
discussion around our office.
This conversation still hasn'tdied down.
So we've convened the veryfirst, all rights factory panel
to discuss it.
Speaker 3 (19:06):
Hello, I'm Katherine Wilms associate agent from the
rights factory.
We wanted to discuss some of theimplications of that article
because the questions that posesabout appropriation and
plagiarism, the ethics of artand writing communities and
trolling by email signoffs arefar from being resolved.
In fact, they may be some of themost pressing concerns of this
literary and cultural moment.
(19:27):
So let's get into it.
Our first panel is a lovely NatKimber, our New York based
agent.
Hi, next we have TRF editorwriter and podcast breakout
star, Diane Tiran.
Hello, great to be here.
And finally we have TRF brandmanager, extraordinaire, the
brilliant and Sampson.
Hi, so excited to get into this.
So if anyone hasn't read RobertCorker's article, pause and go.
(19:50):
Now we'll see you in hour semibriefly.
It's about two writers at, or atleast aspiring writers who are
part of the same writingcommunity, Don Doland and Sonya
Larson.
Dawn donated a kidney to astranger, shared her story story
on social media with what somefelt was, let's say unconvincing
humility, the supposedlyinspiring story inspired Sonya
(20:10):
to write a short about a whitewoman with a savior complex who
had donated a kidney when Dawnconfronted her about it.
She initially lied.
However, among other things inpublished versions, sinus
character wrote social mediaposts that were identical to
dawns.
The short story gained attentionpublication, and that awards
resulting in an ever escalatingfeud between the writers, Dawn,
(20:30):
arguing that her words had beenPLA rise.
And her story appropriated whileSonya argued, argued, sorry.
Initially at first that she didnot do this.
She did, but also that no onehas ownership over a story.
And that Don was attempting toruin her career and stealing
attention away from theimportant insights on race and
privilege.
The story was making lawsuitsabounded discovery happened in
said, lawsuits, everyone lookedpretty big, bad, sorry, it's a
(20:53):
Sega.
So my first question is if weignore the whole plagiarism
elements and there was noquestion of Sonya copying Dawn's
actual words, is it fair gamefor Sonya to use Don's kidney
donation story in her work?
Can anyone actually ever own astory?
Uh, let's start with Diane.
Speaker 5 (21:12):
Okay.
So, and just to clarify myanswer, I'm referencing
personal, not cultural stories.
And my answer is no.
And here is my short cheekyexplanation.
Artists have always renderedhuman experience in their own
form, music, dance, painting,oral stories, sculptures,
photography, film, and thewritten story.
(21:33):
The book that is a wonderfulthing.
And we are richer for it.
Writers like all artists areinspired by the world around
them saying a writer can't writea story inspired by someone else
is like saying people can't takepicture is of anybody but
themselves.
So just imagine a world whereall the photographs are selfies.
(21:54):
That is a dystopia.
Speaker 6 (21:57):
Diane.
I agree with you completely.
And I think that, um, what, whatcomes uh, with the stakes of
this a are, are that wedefinitely want as much variety.
And with that variety becomesinspiration from others that,
(22:19):
um, allows us to like reallyexpress our feelings.
And in the case of Sonya Larson,she felt incredibly powerful
feelings about what it washappening with, um, the kidney
donor and how, um, she wasreacting to her, um, to her
action, um, of Goodwill and, youknow, using other people's
(22:42):
stories to express our ownfeelings and how they come up
for us can be some of the mostpowerful art that is out there.
Speaker 7 (22:50):
Yeah.
I mean, I would definitely arguethat that that's the job
description of a writer is totake the world that they see
around them and filter itthrough their own lens and to
write about it and to express itfor other people to read, like,
that's the whole point of beinga writer?
Um, I think so.
Speaker 3 (23:07):
So if we all kind of agree that yes, you can write a
story about or inspired bysomeone else, theoretically,
when does it become problematic?
Is it only when it relates toorgan donation?
Um, and do you wanna start usoff on this one?
Speaker 7 (23:22):
Yeah.
So we've been talking about thisearlier and it kind of reminded
me of an interesting kind ofthing that had happened in like
my life, um, where my mother wasan Aboriginal woman who her
family was from Alberta, but shegrew up in Northern Ontario and
she told some kind of likepersonal family stories to a
writer friend of hers who wasreally inspired by them and then
(23:45):
asked my mother's permission toinclude them in a short story
collection.
And my mother said, yes, she wasflattered that she wanted these
stories used.
Um, she credited my mother inthe short story collection.
Um, but at the end of the day,they were stories about, um, an
Aboriginal woman and her familyand she was a white woman
writing about them.
So I feel like, you know,morally, maybe she was in the
(24:07):
clear because she did havepermission to write these
stories, but should she havelike, you know, um, and I,
unfortunately my mother sincepassed away, so I can't actually
ask her, you know, what shefeels about it today.
Um, and you know, this is alsothe 1990s and a 2021 lens is
very different than a, a lens ofthe early nineties.
(24:28):
Um, yeah.
So I think there's definitely aline.
Um, I think that maybe writershave to self-police themselves a
little bit on, on the storiesthat we choose to share.
What do you think, Natalie?
Speaker 6 (24:40):
I think that, um, that line, um, is often crossed
because in the past, no spacewas made for people to tell
their own cultural stories.
And that's where we get thatterm own voices is that, um,
it's one thing for rued Kiplingto write about, you know, people
of color, but it's another thingthat at that time, people of
(25:03):
color, weren't really able towrite their own stories.
And we live in a world now wherewe're making so much space for
everybody to write theircultural backgrounds.
And so when you given space forpeople of indigenous, um, and
other, you know, marginalized or, um, you know, diverse
backgrounds to, to compose theirstories, then why should from,
(25:28):
you know, another space be given, um, kind of priority over, you
know, people to write their ownvoices.
And I think that's where thatargument comes from.
Speaker 5 (25:38):
Yeah.
So, um, this is something thatall writers struggle with now,
uh, as a Canadian writer who,who Annes definitely came here
and colonized this land, uh,writing an indigenous story is
not a line I would crossgenerally.
I still go back to my, myprinciple, which is writers can
(26:03):
write about anything.
Um, they may offend people.
They may upset people.
They be canceled of course, but,um, it, it's a, it's a
principle.
I hope we can come back toeventually when everybody is
telling their own stories.
And then there is the other, theother issue, the what not
crossing a cultural boundary,what's a problematic story.
(26:26):
What's a problem approach towriting.
And I would say that any timeyou want to trash someone or
expose them, and you putdetails, authenticating details
about them personally, in anovel that people will recognize
everywhere you are treadingdangerously.
And, uh, you could be at thevery least called a mean person
(26:47):
and at the worst taken to court.
Speaker 6 (26:52):
Yeah.
I think the devil is definitelyin the details and I think it's
quite easy for, uh, I, I mean, Iwould think it's easy for the
details to be changed enoughthat, um, that those lines are
not crossed.
And clearly there's, people'sfeelings wrapped up in these
stakes, you know, when Larson,you know, took the story, um, of
(27:15):
the donor and, you know, andmade it her own into something
that was, um, you know, tryingto you express rage or
frustration about white saviorcomplex, she was doing something
really important, but becauseshe mucked up the details by
actually plagiarizing and using,um, you know, very strong
(27:37):
specifics where that person wasidentifiable.
Um, she definitely crossed theline and in that crossing the
line, she severely compromisedthe beautiful message that she
was trying to evoke through thisvery compelling story idea.
And I think that's one of themajor stakes that gets brought
into it because it's not just,you know, other people's
(27:58):
feelings and having thetransparency to say, Hey, I
really love your story.
And I'm inspired.
Can I use it for a story of myown, you know, going to that
person and being open about it,but, you know, then, um, not
compromising the integrity ofthe message you're trying to
tell by, you know, reallycrossing the line ethically.
Speaker 7 (28:18):
And I think it could probably be argued like if as,
as a writer, you can't put yourown lens on it and your own,
like, take enough to change thedetails.
Maybe you're not that good of awriter.
Speaker 3 (28:31):
Yeah.
I think this is leading usnicely into sort of our next
question is, is what do we owethe people whose stories inspire
artistic, artistic works?
Do we owe them anything?
And, um, you know, my, myinitial thoughts with that is
like, it's kind of a profoundquestion about how to be in the
world.
Um, cuz I think we're agreeinghere that Sonya's FAPA was more
one of etiquette than legalityin a lot of ways.
(28:51):
And you know, she was mockingDawn and it muddied the other
intention of her work, which wasto interrogate privilege and
racism, you know, can you useyour art to settle scores?
Sure.
You, I think you can, but shouldyou, will it help your art?
Um, maybe not.
Speaker 7 (29:04):
Uh, well I was just gonna say, I feel like just as
you know, as a writer isentitled to use the stories that
they see around them.
Those people are entitled toreact in the way that they
react, you know, their reactionthey're fully entitled to, to
feel how they feel about seeingthemselves in a, in a
Speaker 6 (29:20):
Writer's work.
I think in the case of writingsomebody's story, that you are,
you know, connected to somebodywho is an acquaintance or a
friend in a writing group inyour church group, however that
works, you know, just betransparent.
Um, don't be creepy.
Speaker 3 (29:36):
It's a good life lesson
So an author comes to you andthey've lifted, they've lifted
all their dialogue for the QAndon character in their novel,
from their uncle's Facebookpage.
What do you do Diane?
Speaker 5 (29:50):
Well, um, just to echo what Anne said earlier, if
you can't, you know, get acrossyour uncle's insanity and uh,
whatever else you want to sayabout him in your own words,
should you even be writing, bevery simple NA
Speaker 6 (30:06):
As an agent, I would absolutely shut it down, you
know, again, if they couldn'twrite it in their own
Speaker 7 (30:13):
Words.
Yeah.
I mean, I'm not an agent, so Iwouldn't really be faced with
this, um, this situation, but Idid have a friend as we were
discussing this, uh, thisarticle who's said, you know, I
don't think internet word vomitis copyright
copyrighted.
Um, and then I had said, well,you know, she was writing in a
group where she thought she waswriting to fellow writers.
(30:33):
Like what's the differencebetween that and writing like,
you know, posting a short storyon a internet forum for other
writers to critique.
Like it was, it was, you know,on a Facebook post, but it was
still her writing.
Like it was still somethingshe'd written as a writer.
Speaker 3 (30:48):
I, I have a hot take.
This article is very wellwritten.
And if it says, expect, sorry,expertly constructed.
As I think it is, it's pureevil.
Only one person made money offany of this.
And he got away.
Scott free, the real bad artfriend is Robert Colker.
Oh
Speaker 5 (31:06):
Right.
You deserve a,
Speaker 7 (31:08):
That is fantastic.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
Well, thank you everyone.
That was so much fun.
And uh, we'll see you all onslack.
Speaker 5 (31:15):
Fantastic.
Bye.
Bye.
Bye.
Speaker 1 (31:25):
That's a wrap folks.
Thanks for joining us forepisode two of our second
season.
Thanks to our staff, our guestsand Andrew Kaufman, our
producer.
If you like our podcast, pleaseshare your love wherever you
listen and on your socials andlook for us on subst stack.
We'll be back after the holidayswith more Asian provocateur.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.