This was written in 2001, contemporaneously with the events, while they were still fresh.

IN SEARCH OF CAPTAIN ZERO

June 2000 – June 2001

A chronology

Pounded out with teeth clenched by

Allan Weisbecker

“I would have made it shorter, but I didn’t have the time.”

Oscar Wilde

The following is a chronology of my experiences with my Tarcher editor for In Search of Captain Zero, Wendy Hubbert, and my former agent, Mary Tahan, of Clausson, Mays & Tahan. With respect to virtually all the relevant conversations with Wendy Hubbert (WH), I immediately called and recounted them to Mary Tahan (MT).

Also, my correspondences with both these women will directly or indirectly verify the truth of my assertions, since they refer to them contemporaneously with the events. These correspondences are available to anyone who wants to see them.

In my first phone call with WH about this time last year (June, 2000), she told me that my 130,000 word manuscript would have to be cut to 80,000 words. I was surprised at this, since MT told me that WH hadn’t read it yet. When I told WH – that my impression was that she hadn’t read my book – she said that that was right. She hadn’t read it. When I asked her how she could know how long it should be without reading it, she replied, “I don’t have to read your book to know how long it should be.”

(Anything in quotes is in fact an exact quote. Certain statements WH and MT have made to me are so unforgettable that I feel secure in putting them in quotes. In many cases I wrote them down. In the case of WH’s words, MT will remember them, since I not only repeated them to her immediately after the fact but have reminded her of them repeatedly over the past few months. And did so in emails, which I still have. Emails from MT also will back me up. Starting in December of 2000, I also recorded phone calls with MT, since MT and WH had become “buddies.” This was to protect myself in case the two got together in order to deny certain events. If this sounds paranoid, I can only say, Read on.

Here are my thoughts on the above statement from WH regarding the cutting of my book’s length: Even if she is so arrogant and so lacking in respect for the written word that she believes she could know how long a book should be without reading it… even if this were the case, how could she say this to an author, let alone on her first conversation with him? Is this the way to set the tone of an editor/author relationship? (The fact that the finished book came in at over 100,000 words says a lot about her lack of insight and overall ignorance of the way writing works, also.)

During that same conversation – regarding a book, any book’s, length – I brought up Blue Highways, a book similar to mine in theme and subject. (David Groff, who bought my book, in fact recommended it as a good example of my book’s genre). When I reminded WH that that book, which lacked the subplots of mine, came in about 200,000 words, she said this:“Too long. I would have cut it in half.” The word “arrogance” comes to mind. Remember, this was my first conversation with WH. I recounted this conversation in detail to MT as soon as WH and I hung up.

What did MT say to WH about all this? Nothing. I would submit that right here MT should have subtly – perhaps with a joke – made it clear that her client was “surprised” (an understatement) by WH’s assertion that one need not read a book to know how long it should be. And as for WH’s assertion that she would have cut the much beloved Blue Highways (still in print after 20 something years) in half… well, a good-natured comment might have been made about that, too.

After going over WH’s first section of edits (up to about page 60), I was further disconcerted by the tone of her margin comments. “Ugh!” and ‘Yuch!” and “Pul-ease!” and “Give me a break!” and “This is AWFUL!” and the like. (Along with the omni-present “You’re LOOPING!” which was often in the margin next to legitimate foreshadowing.) When she didn’t think a word or sentence was relevant, she’d write “TOTALLY UNNEC” and underline the “TOTALLY” in bold strokes as if she could not control her anger. In general, her comments were overly didactic and very condescending. TOTALLY  condescending, as she would say.

I also noticed that many margin comments were whited out or otherwise obliterated. When I queried her on these deletions, she told me that they were “snippier” than necessary. God only knows what was under there.

What did MT say to WH about this nasty treatment of her client? Nothing.

Many of WH edits were by and large good, though, and, trying to get her on my side, I told her as much. I also told her that I disagreed with some. This is to be expected, I figured, no big deal. We could work out any differences. Well, was I wrong. When I brought up the subject of talking over differences in opinion, WH interrupted me, saying that that would not work. “You’ll never change my mind about anything,” were her exact words. MT will recall that I called her immediately to relay this bizarre statement. It’s also mentioned in several contemporaneous emails. An exact quote.

“You’ll never change my mind about anything.”

What did MT say to WH about this incredible attitude – like maybe just subtly bring it up and query about it, maybe just so WH knew that MT knew about it. Nothing. MT said nothing, did nothing.

(I feel the need to point out that many of the passages WH saw fit to demean in her margin notes survived to the final draft of my book – I refused to take them out or significantly change them. In the second edit, in fact, many times WH changed her mind – ironic, of course, given the above statement – and left them alone; suddenly, they were fine. Further, in the final edit, WH often changed her mind about passages that she, in the previous edits, left alone. She attempted to edit them out. In general, I refused to delete them, and for good reason. None of this would be worthy of mention – there is of course nothing wrong with changing one’s mind; it’s natural and human – except for WH bizarre statement and attitude.)

Between “I don’t have to read your book to know how long it should be” and “You’ll never change my mind about anything”, the tone of our relationship was set. And, somehow, it would go down hill from there. And yet, I managed to hold my tongue in my talks with WH.

(From the beginning, WH told me that she did not want to converse by email. Odd, in this day and age, until one thinks about WH’s many incredible statements – more to come. Who would want this sort of stuff on written record?)

And what did MT do about this deteriorating relationship? Did she attempt to straighten out this woman who was behaving so incredibly toward her client? Nothing. Zero. Never even suggested that WH was out of line. How do I know? Because MT told me she didn’t say anything, never did. I have it in an email. Why? “I don’t want to offend her (WH).”

My agent, my advocate, doesn’t want to offend this person that with every passing week continued to offend me in ways no writer – no person – should have to put up with. Hey – IT’S AN AGENT’S JOB TO SEE THAT HIS/HER CLIENT ISN’T TREATED THIS WAY.

In a subsequent phone call I flat out asked WH about her margin comments. In a rare moment of candor, she replied that she didn’t know why she took that tone with me. “I do treat you different than my other writers.” “I guess so,” was what I was thinking. “Otherwise, you’d have no other writers.” In fact, I flat out mentioned this to WH in a fax I sent her – which, again, is available, along with all my other correspondences. This is as far as I ever went in confronting WH in her behavior. Why? Because that’s my AGENT’S JOB. And because, right up until WH cut off communications with me (lying about the reason – more about that one to come), I tried my best to make it work.

I asked WH (in the above-mentioned fax) if her abusive tone was somehow the result of her not having bought the book. (David Groff did that, of course, then left Tarcher.) That maybe she was angry for having been “saddled with it.” She denied this (in a phone conversation), but not very convincingly, as I recall. She then said she had asked to be assigned to it. (Whether this is true or not, I don’t know. If not, it was one of many untruths WH would utter.)

Finally, WH came up with this: “I treat you the way I do because you’re such a brilliant writer. I get angry when you make unnecessary mistakes.” I would submit that in all the history of disingenuous remarks, this one has to be up there near the top. (I refer to this statement of WH’s in a contemporaneous fax .)

I bring these things up to give perspective to MT’s behavior. As my correspondences show, MT was aware of all this – and did nothing about WH’s behavior. On the contrary, MT supported WH in her mistreatment of me, MT’s client. What? Yes, her lackadaisical attitude evolved to one of hostility toward me. As if I were responsible for the godawful developing problem.

In early July I had a conversation with WH about flap copy and called MT immediately afterward. MT will remember that I’d asked WH if I could see the flap copy when she was finished with it. And that WH went off on a rant at my simple request that got so nasty and prolonged that I hung up on her. (“I don’t want you nitpicking and sending it back and forth and blah blah…” is how it went, as I told MT; this is also in an email I’ve saved.)

Did MT call her and ask her what was the problem with an author seeing the copy that is to go on his book jacket? Did MT try in any way to get Ms Hubbert to behave civilly, if not respectfully, to me? Absolutely not. Nothing.

MT has told me that she was afraid to say anything to WH because she was “afraid Tarcher would cancel the book.” This was also her rationale for not asking for some of my out-of-pocket expenses back (believe it or not) – Tarcher would cancel the book if we asked for expenses. Well, I got news for MT. Aside from the above being just flat ridiculous, IT’S AN AGENT’S JOB TO BE A BUFFER BETWEEN AN EDITOR AND A WRITER IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. I’ve had representation for most of my 21 years as a writer and know this to be the case. Everyone knows this. You just need a modicum of interpersonal skills.

By not calling WH to task, MT made the situation infinitely worse. And as I will show you, she eventually made the total betrayal and wound up lying on WH’s behalf.

Right from the beginning, knowing the trouble I was in having to deal with this kind of attitude, I did my best to keep it mellow with WH. I complimented her on her editing skills in faxes and on the phone. I mention this because the reason WH gave for cutting off communications with me was a lie and these faxes and emails prove it. But I get ahead of myself.

In looking back, I also made some mistakes – although they would not have been mistakes with a person of reasonable temperament and respect for her collaborator. In trying to get her to see an obvious truth, I told her that editing was not a science, but a subjective process and that, given that I’ve been making my living as a writer since 1980, maybe she could learn something from me, too. (I’d told her I was learning things as a result of her edits.) This was a mistake because WH, in her dealings with me, has proved incapable of admitting that she could make a mistake or is capable of learning anything. TOTALLY INCAPABLE, as she would put it. Evidence of this to come.

But a quick example here, one that MT will remember well. In the edit before the galleys, WH say fit to change my phrase, “the North African beach” to “a North African beach,” saying in her notes that the beach hadn’t been mentioned before. Well, not only had the beach been mentioned several times before, but there was a whole chapter about that beach. I of course refused to go along with changing “the” to “a” and explained why. On the phone, WH responded thus: “Well, that may be the case (the whole chapter on the beach), but since I forgot about it, so will readers.” Then: “You may choose to interpret this as meaning I made a mistake, but I don’t see it that way… Do what you want, it’s your book.” MT was completely aware of all this interchange, yet not only continued to fail to talk to WH about her attitude (“I don’t want to offend her”), but, later, would consistently say, in response to my further detailing WH’s bizarre behavior, “Wendy’s not like that.” Well, I would submit that anyone capable of the above attitude/behavior is in fact capable of just about anything.

Let me add that the above absolute inability to admit to a mistake would recur and recur again in the editing process – I’ll not try the reader’s patience by describing them all. As I say, this attitude would finally result in WH cutting off communications with me. Revenge for my not accepting her innumerable arbitrary and sometimes just dumb final manuscript edits. (I say “dumb” now, but a look at my margin notes to WH will show how I was again bending over backwards to be conciliatory and un-insulting.)

Speaking of those margin notes. (I’m jumping ahead here.) In her support of WH, MT, her voice raised, called my margin notes (explanations of why I hadn’t agreed with some of WH’s edits) “the ramblings of a twelve-year-old.” Well, my margin notes were no different than WH’s (except mine were not laden with nasty asides). Explanations of my reasoning. MT said WH’s notes were meant “to teach you.” Yet mine were “the ramblings of a 12-year-old.” I challenge MT (and ask the interested reader) to point our how any of my notes were anything other than well-thought out comments about why I had made certain choices. Yet my agent, my advocate, chooses to insult me. In fact – I’d bet the farm on this – the insult was no doubt an echoing of WH’s words: “The ramblings of a 12-year-old.”

MT would show the same trait as WH – an inability to admit she could be wrong about anything. Hence, in part (I believe), her eventual bonding with WH, to the detriment of me and my book. (There’s a personal reason for this bonding, too, I’m quite sure. I’ll get to that. A real beaut.)

When merely stating to WH that editing is not a science had no effect, I made what was probably another very big mistake. (Again — it would not be a mistake with any normal person.) David Groff, before he left Tarcher, had also edited the first 60 pages. In comparing David’s edits with WH’s, I noticed something remarkable: there was virtually no correlation between the two. With one or two exceptions, the two editors had not agreed on anything. In fact, in three instances, David had underlined sentences or paragraphs and made the margin comment, “Great” or “Good” or whatever. All three of those paragraphs or sentences were crossed out in WH version – in one case she did her “TOTALLY unnec” bit. And the reverse was true also. In the two places where WH made positive remarks, David had edited them out. Two editors that don’t agree on anything. If this isn’t proof that editing is a subjective process, I don’t know what is.

I’ve got to step back a moment here and ask you to think about the above. Two professional editors, from the same house, and they don’t agree on anything. We’re not talking about one editor from High Times Books and another from The Christian Ministry Press here. Presumably, to some extent these two people are at the same house because they share the same sensibilities.

I pointed all this out (as delicately, jovially even, as I could: I’d be glad to provide the fax), thinking it would be food for thought. Wrong again. Boy, was I wrong. And I should have known better. WH then got really testy.

And I told all this to MT in contemporaneous emails. Did she speak to WH and support me on this obvious truth? No. Not a word. I know this to be the case because I asked MT about it. And the correspondences will back this up.

MT will remember that at about this time we had a conference call. MT, WH and myself. MT will recall that after we hung up, MT called me back and said “I can’t believe the way she talks to you.” Meaning her snippy, nasty tone. MT will also remember that I said that that was nothing. She was actually on her best behavior, probably because MT was on the phone with her. Here MT had absolute, first hand proof of my horrendous problems with this editor.

Did MT talk to WH about this? Tell her that she doesn’t appreciate someone talking to her client this way? Or her making nasty comments in my manuscript margins? Did MT tell her that in her opinion, editing is in fact a subjective process and that maybe WH could learn something from me – this “brilliant writer”? You know, be my advocate?

No. Not a word. In fact, MT and WH were becoming friends. Incredible? Yes. And in spite of her first hand knowledge of WH’s behavior, MT would soon start her “Wendy’s not like that” litany when I brought up further incredible WH behaviors.

In talking to WH about blurbs, I suggested we contact Jimmy Buffett, since my book covers the same ground as many of his songs: pot smuggling, the sea and the vagabond types who sail upon it, etc. And with his hundreds of thousands of “Parrothead” fans, a blurb from him could translate into big book sales. Plus, Buffett is mentioned in my book in a very complimentary way, which made it more likely that he would respond. Well, WH astounded me by saying that if I wanted to reach Buffett, I would have to do it myself, privately, with an “over the transom” query. Neither she nor her company could help out with him. “Don’t you or anyone else at Penguin Putnam know anyone at Random House?” I asked. “No,” she said and that seemed to be that. MT will remember that I called her immediately about this. I knew it would be virtually impossible to reach Buffett (especially with just a manuscript, rather than a book or ARC) without being under the aegis of a publishing house. And I brought up the Buffet affair numerous times, including in emails to MT – all in my files.

(Why would WH do this? Here’s why: WH had edited out the chapter on Buffett. I had refused to go along with this, and for good reason. It’s a vital chapter. So when Buffett came up as a possible blurb source, WH refused to help as revenge for my leaving Buffett in the book. Sound incredible? Fine. Let’s hear a reason that makes any sense, and I’d be glad to go along with it.)

WH realized how off the wall she was on this, and, in a conversation with MT, said I’d misunderstood her. Tarcher would after all submit the book to Buffett for a blurb. Well, I did not misunderstand her. And MT knew it, because I told her about the conversation within minutes of having had it. Yet when I brought this up later, MT repeated WH’s claim that I must’ve misunderstood her and that WH wouldn’t do something like that. “Wendy’s not like that.” When I asked MT if she thought I was lying about this, she said, “I don’t know. Maybe.”

The situation with respect to these two women was getting downright surreal.

This in spite of the incredible behavior WH had subjected me to from day one and which I told MT about contemporaneously with that behavior. And MT had heard WH on the phone with me and knew that this woman was operating under some bizarre hostility toward me. (I again refer to you to my correspondences if the thought comes up that I must’ve done something to cause the hostility.)

My advocate? MT knew goddamn well about WH’s initial refusal to contact Buffett, yet she had by then totally turned on me and was supporting WH automatically.

You know what? MT had to support WH by then. She had passed a point of no return in her meekness with WH – and, again, the two – incredibly – had become friends.

And, by the way, this Buffett bizarre-ness was not the last time WH would tell me something astounding then tell MT I “misunderstood” her.

MT will remember the meeting the three of us had at a restaurant. How I’d suggested putting a jungle border around my cover photo, or the back cover photo. WH said that that sounded interesting but she’d have to see it. She also said that the art department couldn’t do it – they “had not done a good job with a similar request.” She asked if I could do it.

So the next say I found a jungle border and hired a graphic artist friend to do the job. Problem was, we needed the cover photo to do it. So my friend called WH to get my photo emailed out. WH told my friend that that would not be possible because 1. She didn’t want to offend the art department person on the project. And 2. It was “late in the process to be doing this.” (Futzing with the cover.)

So WH did not email the photo. On her word, I’d spent – wasted — a full day and $200 getting the job ready to be done and then she prevents me from doing it. Plus, her reasons: She didn’t want to offend the art department? She’d just told me they weren’t capable of doing the job and that I should do it, and now she doesn’t want to offend them. (The idea that WH is shy about offending people is ridiculous to begin with.) Why did she tell me to do it then? And her other reason: It’s “late in the process”? It wasn’t late at all. The process would go on for weeks. This was another of her whoppers. Her lies.

But what was MT’s reaction to this? Even though she were there at the restaurant and knew firsthand that WH told me to spend the time and money to get the job done, MT supported her on not emailing the photo. MT in fact accused me of being “demanding” in expecting the minor help of having the cover photo (my photo) emailed to my graphic designer.

In her many phone tirades, MT has accused me of being “demanding” and “unreasonable” in my requests. I have many times posed a simple question to MT. This is it: Can you name one instance, one request on my part, that was “demanding” or “unreasonable.” Here was her consistent  answer: “I don’t have the time to make a list.” To which I’d respond, “Don’t make a list, just name one.” Of course she never did name even one. Because there isn’t even one. My perceived demanding-ness is solely based on the fact that MT, since June, has done virtually nothing that I’ve asked of her (and has supported this editor whom she knew was mistreating her client). And so it seems I’m demanding. I pose the question once again: Can she name one request I’ve made that was unreasonable or demanding? If she wants 15% of my five years work, I demand an answer. And be specific. Come on, name one thing.

Want an example of my being… demanding? Let’s see…

Since September I had been asking about deadline for the jacket. I wanted to know how much time we had to get blurbs – I was doing 90% of the work along these lines. And I also wanted to be able to make suggestions. Not demands, suggestions – I was and am fully aware that, unlike the interior photos (which I got screwed on by WH, but I’ll get to that), the jacket is Tarcher’s decision. To this question, MT never answered. She just said “we have plenty of time.” In spite of my repeated requests for a more specific answer (is this demanding?), I never got one. Oh, yes I did, in mid January. From whom? The artist who designed the cover. I had to find out from him that the deadline passed “weeks ago.” And that I could have had my cover art back – which I’d been begging for — “weeks ago”.

Regarding the cover art, my photos:

MT knew how desperately I need that art for my promotional Web site, but she did nothing to get it back – even though the art department was done with it. Unbelievable. My advocate? (MT might say how hard she tried but that’s bs. It was her attitude that in wanting my artwork emailed to me I was being “demanding” that was a root cause of the problem with WH in the first place.)

MT called me demanding because I wanted my artwork emailed to me for use in this Web site I’m spending my whole net advance on to promote the book. With this kind of attitude, no wonder WH figured she could do anything and there would be no repercussions. If my own agent is against me on this simple request – well, what the hell. Screw Allan W.

It takes two minutes to email a slide. No problem. (Or they could have been overnighted to me so I could scan them; then I’d overnight them right back.) The cover designer himself told me that. But too late now. He sent the art back to WH (because, as he told me, he was “done with it”) and guess what? She still would not send it to me.

I would suggest the reader look at my Web site, see what I’ve put into it. American Photo and Petersen’s Photographic (total circulation over a half million) are planning to feature it in upcoming issues. That’s how impressive it is. (Between February and mid June pf 2001, I’ve gotten about 50,000 hits.) And the exposure value of this and from other publications amounts to the best free promotion one could ask for. (The amount of free publicity my books have gotten via links from other sites and magazine profiles and reviews is way to extensive to go into here.)

(It’s now August, 2002. Although the American Photo spread did not happen, the Petersen’s Photographic one did. A major profile (8 pages worth) and pitch for my books and my web site. Readership of approx 200,000. The other profiles I’ve gotten, Surfer magazine – over 200,000 readership, based largely on my web site, are  available.)

I would suggest a quick phone call to WH now: ask her why – in the half year between August and February, she refused to give me brief access to my own work, which I needed to promote my Tarcher book; indeed, was spending my whole net advance in doing so.

Speaking of the cover – when did I get to see it? Not until about half of New York saw it. WH had showed it – as MT told me – to “everyone in the building” and had messenger-ed it to MT, but still had not showed it to me (again: a simple matter of emailing the file or, hey, how about the U.S. Mail?), nor did she have an intention of showing it to me. In spite of repeated requests to see it. And this was my photo used.

Were my repeated requests to see my own cover an example of my being “demanding”?

To sum up the artwork debacle: It was in August, 2000 when I started asking WH for the files or my artwork to be emailed to me, for use on my Web site. I did not ask for the slides to be returned, just for the files to be sent. There was no doubt that they were scanned and on file in the art dept – the cover was eventually emailed to me, no problem. Indeed, as anyone knows and as I’ve said, the emailing of a file is a simple process. Takes about a minute to do.

WH refused in August, and continued to refuse right up until December, to ask someone to do it. (I would also bet she had the files in her computer and could have done it herself. When the cover was eventually sent, it was from her email address.) Keep in mind that these are my photos, artwork Tarcher is getting free. And my use for them – on my website – is to promote the book. (As of June, 2001, I’ve spent close to $20,000 on the site and ads for the book.) But no, WH would not send the files or lend me my slides so I could scan them.

WH’s reason for not sending the files was this: “That’s not the way we do things around here.”

Let me point out that in the matter of WH’s refusal to email my graphics designer the cover, the reasons she gave (“not offending the art department” and “it’s late in the process – one reason was absurd, the other a lie) had nothing to do with the difficulty of emailing photo files. Had nothing to do with “the way things are done around here.” She ought to at least keep straight her “reasons” for total non-cooperation with me in perfecting and promoting my book. Am I right here?

What was my agent’s, my advocate’s  reaction to WH’s refusal of help? My advocates immediate answer was that  “you can’t always get what you want.” And that I should stop being “demanding.”

Why did WH finally agree, in December, to email me the files (she didn’t actually do it, but she agreed to do it; a huge and aggravating concession on her part). Why? MT will remember. Because I sent an email, cc’d to everyone at Tarcher, asking for someone to help me get my artwork back. That’s when she changed her mind – that very day. Why? Because I’d made her unbelievable behavior public, that’s why. WH knew her colleagues would find her behavior incomprehensible.

But still, she refused to actually email the files. She merely said she would, to quell the questions from her colleagues. It would be another two months before I’d get the art.

And in November – I love this one – when I resumed my pleas for files of my artwork to be sent to me, here’s what MT said to me, angry that I’d brought the subject up again: “You ought to feel lucky that Tarcher is using your photos at all and stop demanding this.” Then: “They’re doing you a favor by publishing your photos.” (I’ve saved this email from MT.)

What? Feel lucky that Tarcher is using my photos? Doing me a favor? This is my agent telling me how lucky I am that Tarcher is getting a great cover, back cover and interior art for free. This is my advocate? I hardly know what to say to that.

I was told from the very beginning that the interior photos were mine to choose – which ones would be used in the book. I have this in writing from WH. My choice, period. Well, not so. Against my wishes and without even consulting me, WH changed two of the interior photos. The one opening Part 2 and the one opening Part 3. When I complained to MT about this, she refused to do anything. This is what she said on the phone (reflected also in an email): “It’s an editorial decision. I trust her (WH’s) judgment.” What? Are you kidding me? I’m a professional photographer who has been promised control over the photos that appear in my book, and this is my agent’s view? My advocate? She trusts WH’s judgment over mine. Wow.

Here’s one: In October I called WH with a suggestion for the title page. Just a suggestion, an idea. She immediately replied (in the snippy tone MT will remember from our conference call) that the title page was the art department’s job and she didn’t have anything to do with it. Although I knew that this was not true, that WH was involved in everything about the book (a thought that has caused me to lose sleep), I only asked that she forward my suggestion. She said no, she wouldn’t. Repeated that it was not up to her to do that, be involved in that aspect of the book. This of course, again, was not true.

I called MT about this and some time later heard that Wendy said that I’d “misunderstood” her. That yes, she would forward my suggestion. I have no idea if she did do this, but I assure the reader that I did not misunderstand her. Truth is, WH automatically said no to any suggestion or request I make. (Remember the Buffett idea.) Then, later, when she sees how it looks, she recants, saying I misunderstood her. This has been her m.o. from day one.

Yet when I repeat these matters to MT, trying to get her to see what I’m up against with WH, she assures me that I must’ve in fact misunderstood WH. That she’s “gotten to know” WH and WH wouldn’t do those things. And often she’d either hint or outright say that I’m lying. This in spite of all WH’s behaviors she knows from first hand to be true.

Flap copy. WH got so angry at my request to see her flap copy that she told MT to tell me to write it myself. So I did. And WH made the decision to use hers instead of mine. Okay, big deal, right. Here’s the thing: She made the decision without reading my copy. How do I know? My agent, MT, let it slip. (I could tell by her tone that she regretted it as soon as she said it.) And you know what? Mine’s better. It’s on my website. Look for yourself. But that’s not really the point, is it?

Most of the blurbs we’ve gotten were my doing. Sending out manuscripts cost me money (hundreds of dollars) that I’m apparently not going to be reimbursed for – WH’s call. (What a surprise.) Fine. One of the blurbs was from Kem Nunn, a well respected writer (his books include Tapping the Source, Pomona Queen and The Dogs of Winter). I got the blurb through cultivating Kem on my own, yet when he sent in his quote – to Wendy – she didn’t bother to inform me, for weeks. (I had to find out on my own.) Bad enough – I was severely embarrassed at not having thanked Kem. But the worst was yet to come. Part of Kem’s quote goes, “Allan Weisbecker has given us a surfer’s On the Road, straight into his very own heart of darkness.” Nice quote, but it would be even better if heart of darkness were written as a title. As in Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness. So I called Kem and he said, “Yes, of course, I meant it that way. Change it.” He meant to compare my writing to Conrad’s. Great. Way better with the words as a title. No question. Right? Guess what? WH refused to make the change.

And guess what else. My agent, MT, agreed with WH. That the words should not be a title. “Oh, people will understand the reference,” is what she said. Can we possibly find one other person on the planet that would agree here? That the quote is better as a non-title? I doubt it. Let’s not compare Allan Weisbecker’s writing to the great Joseph Conrad. No, let’s not do that. Right, girls?

Incomprehensible? Was to me. Was to Kem. What was WH’s motive here? Just to refuse me something? Yeah. Trying to say that I, as a person, have a dark heart? (That’s the implication, isn’t it, if you don’t title-ize the phrase.) Whatever. Hurt the book? Sure. Everything counts in marketing.

Obviously, by beseeching MT to try to get WH to make this obvious improvement (and at Kem Nunn’s request as well), I was being demanding. Right, MT?

Another gem: In reply to my exasperation at all this, MT, in early December, told me this: “Tarcher doesn’t owe you a book. You ought to thank them for publishing it.” But my god, is this the way an agent should talk? Who is MT working for, me or Tarcher?

The edit leading to the galleys, predictably, was a nightmare. This was WH’s second to last chance to screw around with me and by god she did. Changed things wrongly, arbitrarily. Every time I used the phrase “ couple”, she changed it to “a few.” Changed “although” to “though.” Continually (and often wrongly) changed “the” to “a”. (Many of these survived to the final book — they are hurtful and I’d be glad to point out where they are.) Tried to cut vital passages. I could go on. Whatever skills she showed in the first edit went out the window here.

(Another beaut of a quote from WH comes to mind, from back in July: “If I go over a ms page and haven’t marked it up, I feel I haven’t done my job.” Real music to a writer’s ears.)

I had none of it and refused to make most of these changes. When I pointed out the arbitrary and wrong edits to MT, MT was silent, though she did admit that some edits were “maybe not great.” Maybe not great. Right. Did she support me here? Quite the contrary. When WH sent the ms to MT, raving about how I didn’t use the proper protocol, MT literally yelled at me for being unprofessional. That’s right. WH sent the ms to my agent for re-editing, not to me. And I get berated – for being  unprofessional.

Listen: I had told WH that I didn’t know the protocol. That my last book was 15 years before and that I had done the edit mostly over the phone with Gary Fisketjon at Random House. Yet WH never offered to send me Tarcher’s editing protocol sheet. MT knew this, yet yelled at me for being “unprofessional.” Not a word to WH. So MT goes over the ms and guess what?

She charges me $300 for the work – she’s getting 15% of this book I’ve worked for (now) 5 years on and spent, what, $150,000 to write (plus my whole advance on promotion), and she charges me for a few hours work. Unbelievable.

Did MT ever get on WH for not helping me out with the protocol, when WH knew I didn’t know it? NO. She berates me.

And the last edit – WH again sends the ms back to MT to do the “fixing of an unprofessional job by the writer.” Well, there was nothing wrong with that edit, and everyone involved knows that. I sent the same sort of edit to Dan Slater (Cosmic Banditos) and he said “It looks great.” But did MT call WH and say, “What the hell is going on here? Why are you sending this to me? It’s fine.” NO. She berates me again for being unprofessional. Indeed: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? (Even MT’s partner, Stedman Mays, said he didn’t understand why WH sent this edit back at all, never mind to MT.)

Look at that final edit. Was there any reason for WH to do what she did? No, of course not. It was fine. Oh, except that I didn’t agree with WH’s arbitrary and flat wrong edits. In her irrational, absolutely unprovoked anger towards me, she’d fallen apart as an editor.

This really is important, because WH (and indeed, MT) can deny things said on the phone or whatever. Yet this is obvious, physical evidence of how out of hand WH has been, and is. Look at that edit and try to come up with a reason an editor would return it – to the writer’s agent! If that makes no sense, then I would submit that one can hardly doubt anything else I’ve said here.

WH’s returning that final edit was revenge for my pointing out her mistakes; by refusing to go along with them, as I had every right to do. That and because she intended to screw around with my words. Keeping me out of the loop was necessary to do this. More about this in a bit.

And MT refused, flat refused, my repeated requests to ask Tarcher for money I’d spent on postage, etc, in sending out the ms. Even though the ms submissions in question were supposed to be done by Tarcher. MT knew this. She was there when WH said she’d make the submissions. Then WH changed her mind and sent me the mss, saying I should send them to the surfing press. (Submissions to the press are the publishers responsibility. Tarcher did send some, but I sent more.) And these submissions that I paid for resulted in most of the blurbs we got – including one of the back cover blurbs. Yet my agent, my advocate, refused to ask for my money back until January. It was a bit late by then and, predictably, WH changed the story about who was supposed to send what. Lied again, even though MT was present (at the restaurant) when WH said she’s take care of the sending.

But back to the edit – this was in September. As mentioned, I had clearly refused to go along with many of WH’s changes, marking the ms to reflect this (without being insulting, as WH had been when she marked the ms; on the contrary, I took the time to explain my reasoning – still further evidence that I was still trying to be conciliatory to this woman); and yet many of WH’s often incorrect and even flat wrong changes somehow made it into the galleys.

The parentheses around translations, for example. A really dumb change that I refused to do. In about 30 places these parentheses stayed in. When I queried MT on this horrendous mistake (hundreds of people read the galleys), she had no explanation and refused to deal with my queries in a rational manner. “Oh, it’s a conspiracy against you!” and hangs up. But she did say she did the removal of the parens correctly. Really, then how did all 30 stay in? How? “I don’t know!” was her answer. When I suggested that either she or WH screwed up, or screwed with my ms without my permission, she wouldn’t deal with it, saying, “You’re obsessing!” What kind of an answer is that? Obsessing? Look at the galleys. These parens are hurtful to a read of my book (by critics mostly) – goddamn right I was obsessing.

During one of our many arguments, MT berated me for making changes in the second to last edit. This is a writer’s supposed advocate echoing the words of this editor that has been mistreating her client from day one. MT, her voice raised, says that I shouldn’t’ve made changes on the paragraph level in that edit. This was not true and I had a letter from WH to prove it – again, my advocate is berating her writer for trying to get the ms right, and doing so within the editing protocol.. But the best part came when I reminded MT that WH herself had asked me to remove a whole chapter during that edit. Which I did (and regret it heavily – another bad suggestion on WH’s part). So it was okay for WH to ask for this major change – on the chapter level — but I shouldn’t make even lessor ones, on a paragraph level.

Well, I’d nailed MT on that one, all right. What was her reaction? “I have work to do!” And she hung up on me. This is her m.o. In the many times when I caught her in supporting this hostile, dishonest editor, she would hang up on me instead of dealing with it.

In the edit leading to the galleys, I’d deleted a sentence that read (referring to my showbiz career): “I’d managed to alienate about half the people I worked with.” Yet that sentence somehow made it into the galleys. How could this be? It could not have been clearer that I’d deleted this sentence. And MT went over the ms herself to make sure the edits were done correctly.

How did it get in the galleys? When I asked MT this simple question, she said, “I don’t know.” Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? WH wanted it in for her personal reasons. Proves that I’m difficult to work with. So in the version she gave to the type setter, she stet-ed that line. Against my wishes and, of course, without talking to me first. For personal reasons, she changed my words. Oh, paranoid am I? Be glad to send that page – I’d obliterated the line to the point of illegibility. When I pointed out the obvious, that WH put it back in, MT said, “No, Wendy’s not like that.” Wendy’s not like that.

“I don’t know.” “Wendy’s not like that.” “You’re paranoid.”

Why did I delete that line? Mainly because it’s not true. It sounded good when I wrote it (in terms of the story), but since it’s not true, I deleted it. Truth is, truth is, I’m not difficult to work with, when I’m treated with proper respect. Or even just civilly.

Out of chronology, but here’s another one. Back in October, WH told me on the phone that she was going to send out 1,000 galleys to independent book stores as a promotional move. When I hung up I immediately called MT and relayed this. MT said that sounded strange, not likely. I agreed, but that was what WH told me, flat out. No misunderstanding – I’d asked a few questions to make sure I got it right. 1,000 independent book stores were to get my galleys.

Well, of course, this 1,000 store submission was a lie. In fact, much later, when WH told MT that she was sending the galleys to two hundred independent book stores (with a personal, handwritten note to each), I knew that was a lie as well. I still say it’s a lie. So I requested a list of these stores. Guess what? No list. Why? Because WH did not send the galleys to 200 independent book stores, let alone with a personal note to each. But this time she lied not to me but to MT. MT has not supported me in this simple request for a list– surely a list would exist if that was done. I want to find out why, if 200 galleys were in fact sent, why have we seen only one reaction to the book by the independents? (A rave review for Book Sense, btw.)

And when I bring up this claim that WH had originally made about the 1,000 store submission, MT says that WH would never say that because it’s not true. Well, that was my point, wasn’t it?. WH lied to me, tried to take credit for something she had no intention of doing. When I tried to explain that, MT said, “No, Wendy’s not like that.” The subtext was clear: I’m lying.

“Wendy’s not like that.” Yeah, right. My advocate prefers to believe this editor who has consistently mistreated her client, rather than her client.

And I repeat: I want to see that list of 200 book stores. Let’s see if WH is lying. Anyone want to make a bet? Name the amount.

Then there’s the mythical Book Sense Award. WH tells MT that she (WH) has “nominated” for the 2001 Book Sense Award (the 1,000 then 200 galley submission is related to this). Well, I spoke to Book Sense. There is no Book Sense Award. When I pointed this out to MT, she talked to WH and stuttered something like, “Oh, it’s something else, just a misunderstanding.” Misunderstanding? Boy, a lot of misunderstandings going on. Another lie. WH just makes things up to get credit for something she doesn’t do. Like the 1,000 then 200 galley submission. The Book Sense Award. No, MT didn’t misunderstand WH. WH just flat lied – this time making up an Award I’ve been nominated for, that happens to not exist. But no, it was a misunderstanding, because “Wendy’s not like that.” Here’s a case where WH misled MT and still MT stands up for WH.

Then there’s the legal release from Patrick Abrams, that fiasco. When the Tarcher lawyer, Jeffrey Miller, wrote his own, awful (hardly literate) and clearly hurtful-to-my-book version of “A Note on Veracity,” WH told Miller that that note was going into the galleys and the finished book whether it was legally necessary or not.

I bring this up because there is no doubt in my mind that WH is capable of sabotaging my book, if she can get away with it. Put it this way: Whatever she can do to upset me, she’ll do, and to hell with the book’s success. I told MT this – it’s perfectly obvious if you look at all her behaviors. “You’re paranoid,” was the response. Really? Okay: what possible motive would WH have for putting that clearly damaging note in the book, other than a little bit of sabotage? “I don’t know,” was MT’s answer. Then: “Wendy’s not like that.”

But I’ve saved the best for last. Of all the unacceptable behaviors that WH has perpetrated, surely the worst was cutting off communications with me in September. Telling MT that I’d have to go through her (MT) to communicate. Must’ve been a hell of a good reason for an editor to cut off communications with a writer just when the book is in the final stages, right?

The reason WH gave was this: I had insulted her. Considering WH’s continual insults in her margin notes, phone conversations and overall attitude, it must’ve been something really serious I did or said. I mean how thin-skinned could this nasty woman be? Well, she made a mistake, and so did MT. WH (according to MT) said I’d insulted her in a fax. I knew this was a lie, since in my faxes I’d bent over backwards to be conciliatory. (It killed me to do that.) And you know what? WH even got specific, saying I’d said she “needs psychological help.” Well, of course, she does, but I never said anything even close to that.

But you know what MT said, when we had words about this? She said that she’d seen the fax; said that WH had sent it to her. Think about that. My agent, my advocate is now lying to support this editor who has been mistreating her client from day one. Supporting her in this incredible move of cutting off communications. (Believe it or not, I had maintained civility with WH in our phone and fax correspondences. Tensioned-rife or not, I had no desire to lose all contact with the person who held the fate of my book in her hands.)

If MT is going to deny that she was lying about seeing the fax, then let’s see it. Let’s see this fax wherein I insulted WH. Let’s see it. Where I say WH needs psychological help. This is vital. Can I see it? Oh, lost it? Well, then, ask WH to send it again. What, WH doesn’t have it either? You mean you both lost it?

IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Wait. Maybe it sort of does. Maybe I told MT that I thought WH needs psychological help. (I probably did.) And maybe MT passed my comment along to WH, and this is why WH is saying I insulted her. If so, this amounts to blatant betrayal on MT’s part. Doesn’t it? Passing along a clearly privileged comment like that, a comment guaranteed to further inflame an already untenable situation.

But this gets to the heart of the matter: MT, my advocate, lied to support the unconscionable behavior of this editor. If MT is going to try to deny it all – deny she said she saw the fax, well, sorry, I have emails from both myself and MT that belies that lie. And I have phone tapes, real doozies.

No, she can’t deny it. How does she explain this lie? If she can’t, then what are we left with? An agent who has totally betrayed her client. That’s what we have.

Want to know why WH cut off communication with me? It bears repeating. Because I refused to accept many of her last edits. Remember that incredible statement, “You’ll never change my mind about anything?” And “You can choose to think I made a mistake.” Truth is, of course, that WH can’t – is not capable – of admitting she’s wrong about anything. Hence her rage when I pointed out the disparity between her and Groff’s edits.

When I pointed this out to MT, she responded with, “Oh no, Wendy’s not like that.”

Wendy’s not like that. There you have it.

In my 20 years, I’ve been involved in more major projects than I can remember – 40-50 at least (feature films, TV shows, books, magazine articles) – and I’ve had serious problems with exactly three people. No, four. I’m forgetting about my former agent, advocate, Mary Tahan. I had a problem with a producer at Disney in ‘92, the guy at Men’s Journal in ’98 (who I challenged to a boxing match to get the money they owed me; it worked) and, now, Wendy Hubbert. And Mary Tahan. But wait. MT is really one and the same with WH.

Before I end this godawful document, I feel I need to explain the first paragraph in the Acknowledgments to my Tarcher book, In Search of Captain Zero. In it I fairly effusively thank both Mary Tahan and Wendy Hubbert for their help and dedication. If all I say above is true, and it is, how could I include this? Here’s that story: I wrote that page in June, before the worst of the above occurred, and before MT turned on me. At that time the thanks I give to WH was made as a gesture of conciliation (as I tried to do in my correspondences), even though she had already started in with her nasty margin comments and all-around arrogant, surly behavior.

By December, however, enough was definitely enough. I informed MT that due to both of their behaviors, I was deleting the Acknowledgments page all together. This was, in effect, still another (undeserved) conciliatory move on my part. I could have just deleted their names, which would have been the correct move; in effect letting them and the world know that they had behaved unacceptably. By deleting the whole page, this was avoided. Well, the menacing tone with which MT responded actually frightened me, and I am not easily frightened. The hostility. I was already worried that WH would more actively sabotage my book than she already had – perhaps even do something to get it cancelled from the list. Her statement to the Tarcher lawyer, Jeffrey Miller, that the damaging Note of Veracity as Miller wrote it would stay in, not only the galleys but the book itself, whether it was legally necessary or not, was further proof that WH was capable of outright sabotage. And with MT being her de facto ally, well, I backed off in fear for my book and left the page in as is.

And indeed, I had (and have) every reason to worry. Put yourself in WH’s place. If you had treated a writer as she had treated me, would you want that writer’s book to become a success, maybe a bestseller? A circumstance that would give that writer the power to make demands. Like “fire that woman or I’ll find myself another publisher for the sequel.” Think about that. (If the book fails, she can always say, “I didn’t buy it. I was saddled with it.”) WH is arrogant but she’s not stupid. She must have thought this over by now.

It occurs to me that WH and MT, seeing a mutual threat in my bringing out the truths and facts of this document, may get together and just deny everything. Call me a liar or whatever. And it would be two to one. (Doesn’t look good, either – like I can’t get along with anyone, right?) Aside from the correspondences that corroborate most of my above statements, I have one other piece of evidence that what I say is true: my memoir.

I would ask this: Is it likely that the person who wrote that book is capable of lying about all these matters (or even dishonestly spinning them)? Aside from my lack of motive in doing this, I believe my memoir shows me to be a person borderline obsessed with self-reflection and the truths behind my own motivations.

Truth is, I simply am not the type of person who would fabricate anything – even details – to hurt another person. And given the fact that MT did sell my book, and that WH did help the book in her first edit (notwithstanding her insults), what kind of person would I be to try to hurt these people?

Indeed, what is my motive here? I must confess that revenge for my treatment is part of it. And to alert other writers and people in publishing as to the behavior of these two individuals. But bottom line:

Truth is truth. Tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. That’s what I’m doing here.

(Although playing fast and loose with events is an accepted practice in memoir, in the interest of honesty I attempted to include in my book the aforementioned Note on Veracity. Still further evidence of where I stand with respect to truth – I owned up to combining characters, fabricating some dialogue and fiddling with chronology. One of WH’s other outrages was her deletion of the note from the manuscript when she had them printed up last summer. (The clearly specious legal issue had not yet come up.) Just took it out, without consulting me. (Need I even say it?: MT did, said, nothing.) WH had no fucking right to do that.

Did she?)

I’ll finish up by saying that I don’t really know what the motives are that WH has been operating under. Surely the fact that WH didn’t buy my book is one. And, certainly, she does have psychological problems. Does it matter?

And what of MT? What’s up with her? Does her inability to confront WH explain her incredible betrayal of her client, me? She had no problem in confronting me, in venting hostility. So a general inability to confront people doesn’t explain it.

Given the situation, she did have to make a decision on who to support. Why WH and not me? A female friend of mine (who is also a writer), having listened to my tale of woe, asked me a few questions, frowned at my stupidity and told me what she thought had happened.

In late May of 2000, I asked MT if she’d like to come out to Montauk for a visit, get out of the city for a few days. I’d get her a room near to where I was staying. Sounded great to her. About a week later I was talking to her about other matters and happened to mention that my girlfriend from Trinidad was coming up and would be at Montauk for the proposed weekend (in mid June). I thought MT would like her.

Guess what? MT never came out to Montauk for a visit. Why?

The behaviors outlined above commenced within a few days of my spilling the beans about my girlfriend. (I had never mentioned having a girlfriend before.) Our relationship quickly deteriorated to the point where a social relationship was no longer a possibility.

Coincidence? My female writer-friend doesn’t think so, and, thinking about it, neither do I. The old Woman Scorned Syndrome. In fact, it was worse than that. MT must’ve immediately realized that I had never even considered a relationship with her, beyond agent-client. Hey, she didn’t even get scorned really; it never came up. Such was my disinterest. She calls me unprofessional.

MT bonded with WH because WH – for her own unbalanced reasons (whatever-the-hell they are) – had an attitude toward me that MT suddenly could identify with. So these two females ganged up on me.

(A note to Stedman Mays: I’d bet anything that you remember the above events; my invitation to Montauk – some winking, etc. around the office kind of a thing. No, I know you’re not going to admit it to me – you sense trouble here in this document – but between you and Mary… it’s going to be uncomfortable to deal with this issue, no?)

Some Final Notes

I awoke at an early morning hour on February 4th to find an image of Wendy Hubbert suspended before me in a ghostly glow. I’d had such nightmares before, of course, but this one persisted. Then I realized that the image was real, more or less. I’d fallen asleep with Book TV on and there Wendy was, on a panel discussing “Book Doctors.” I reached for the remote device but my finger froze over the power button. As with other nightmares I’ve had, I was fascinated as well as horrified.

Soon someone brought up a book Wendy’d written and asked how the editing had gone on that; an interesting question, in theory, Wendy being an editor and all. (Of course the  people on the tube didn’t know just how interesting, as I did.) Here was Wendy’s answer, quick and sharp, as if the question were ridiculous: “It didn’t need editing. It was perfect.”

Wendy, I suspect, if called to task on this absurd statement, would not doubt claim it was a joke. Check that tape, I suggest, and look at her expression. It was no joke. Her rejoinder was pure instinct. (And I have been able to detect no sense of humor in her, ironic or otherwise.) And her behavior with respect to me, as outlined above, certainly lends a certain… perspective to her words.

The idea of this woman interacting with – and having power over – creative people… it truly is a horrifying thought.

Oh, and I love this, can’t resist a quick mention: Soon after the Book TV episode, I had a conversation with MT wherein I mentioned WH’s bizarre comment about her book being “perfect” and not needing an edit. Unbelievably (on second thought, I should have seen it coming), MT said this: “I don’t remember her saying that. I must’ve been out getting the wine.”

MT was there, with her buddy, at the show’s taping. And she was bragging about it to me. And she denies hearing the comment. Well girls, it’s there, on tape, forever. (As is the sort of stunned beat of “what-did-she-just-say?” silence from everyone else on the panel as they reflected on what had just been said: review the tape and see what I mean.)

What a pair.

No no, wait! This aspect is too good to be true! I looked up WH’s book on Amazon.com and guess what it’s about? “Surviving your first year of marriage”! By God, reality once again humbles me with its machinations. I couldn’t have made up a better subject matter for Ms. Hubbert to write about, in terms of balls-to-the-wall irony! (The character traits needed for a successful marriage and a fruitful editor-writer relationship are virtually identical, are they not? Mutual respect, humility, the need for compromise, honest communication — as opposed to cutting it off — etc, etc. But pardon my stating the very obvious here.)

BTW: My relationship with Ms. Hubbert, as of about now, “lasted” one year.

The words “You’ll never change my mind about anything” echo in my head.

Beautiful. I’ve ordered her book (which, in spite of being “perfect”, is OP).

#

There is an upside for yours truly in all this, of course. I’m a writer, of late a memoirist, actually, and if my experiences over the past year aren’t grist for the good old creative mill, I don’t know what is. A book? Maybe. Certainly a major piece for a publication like The New Yorker, at the very least. A piece about “a writer’s nightmare” with the book biz is long overdue, I suspect. And the other writers I’ve queried all have publishing horror stories – the prevalent disrespect from the powers-that-be, etc, etc. (Hey, it’s not only me that can’t seem to get along. I’m just the one who was pushed too far.)

Aside from the above (in its present form, an admittedly dry chronology), there are rich subplots, which continue on in the present.

The Cusack movie deal. A quick summation of one aspect of that: MT was unable to get the $15,000 I was owed since January, so I took over. Made another one of my threats (remember the Men’s Journal boxing challenge – it worked perfectly; the creep there sent me the money they owed the next day). And guess what? John Cusack immediately calls me to apologize, and the money they owed came within days. People love that kind of stuff. Writer gets what’s coming to him by using physical threats.

No wonder Sean Penn wants to play me.

During all this time, my mother – whom I was taking care of – was dying of cancer. I believe she held out to see my book in print; she died in late April, outliving all prognoses. Rich, personal stuff, which I’m told I’m good at. I’ve wanted to write about my mother, and this is a perfect venue. How much it hurt her that I was going through all this, absolutely unnecessarily.

But how have things gone more recently?

A real quick summation: I have not been able to get any emails returned from Tarcher, in spite of my book being – I believe – Tarcher’s best seller published since January. Not from my publicist (his oh-hum attitude and refusal to respond to simple queries and suggestions has resulted in another person I “can’t get along with”), not from Joel Fotinos, whom I queried about a meeting to possibly straighten matters out, with respect to… a few things. Not the least of which is my next book. I tried to briefly explain that I don’t have an editor or an agent…

Should Mr. Fotinos read this (or at least coverage of it), maybe he’ll now understand…

(I absolutely know that WH has lied to everyone at Tarcher about me, which may account for the stony silence…)

Oh. Important. I recently wrote an email to Ken Siman, filling him in on what I’ve been up to lately in terms of promoting my book. The half dozen profiles and reviews I’ve secured in newspapers and magazines (total circ over a half million). I asked some simple questions, like were we going into another printing, how have sales been, and had he come across any new reviews. (A trick question: I wanted to see if he found the Raleigh News Observer rave that I was responsible for. He had been unable to find so many others… I’ve had to find my own reviews, is what I’m saying.)

Mr. Siman did not respond to my message. But I did get an email from Mary Tahan, saying that I should contact Tarcher through her. Mr. Siman didn’t have the courtesy to respond to my message directly.

Listen: NO ONE IS TO CONTACT MARY TAHAN ON MY BEHALF OR TALK TO HER ABOUT ME. She is not my agent.

I trust that it’s clear why this is the case.

But back to my story.

Think of it: I return from the jungles of Central America in ’98, where I’d had my life threatened, to all of the above. A metaphor there, I suspect – I’ll try not to be too heavy handed.

In fact, I’ll be back down there very soon, and will write the story – book, article, whatever –  from there, where I feel safe. Cool, no? Writing it from the jungle.

In tone and substance, we’ll be somewhere on the spectrum between Kafka and Woody Allen, with a bit of Hemingway for good measure, if I can manage it.

If I write it. Actually, I haven’t decided yet what I’m going to do about all this utter and complete bullshit.

Maybe I’ll clean up this document, post it on my Web site (has anyone looked at my Web site, which has already garnered 60,000 hits?), and take out an ad in the online Publisher’s Weekly, with a direct link. Since I don’t have an agent, this might work very well in getting me a book or article deal.

EPILOGUE
(a final threat)

Listen: I am fucking pissed off. It will take a major apology from Tarcher and from Stedman Mays to un-piss me off.

One last thing. If anyone is considering fucking around with me or my book further (I’m mainly thinking of Ms. Hubbert and Ms. Tahan here, who will, by the way, be greatly challenged in getting their stories straight), some sort of preemptive bullshit, here’s my advice: Don’t do it. Really, don’t. Bad move. Don’t even think bad thoughts about me.

You don’t want me to go from pissed off  to obsessed.

Since Ms Hubbert didn’t like to “communicate by email or fax” (for obvious reasons), I have little to offer from her; in fact, nothing. She did all her bizarre shit verbally. But here’s a letter I wrote her:

Allan Weisbecker
600 North 35th St. #704
Morehead City, NC 28557
252 240-1280
eFax & Voice Mail 208 474-5453
allancw@clis.com

Wendy Hubbert
Jeremy P. Tarcher, Inc.
375 Hudson St.
NYC 10014
Fax 212 366-2536

October 21, 2000

Wendy,

Since you have cut off communications with me, I’ll have to do this via letter.

I find it puzzling that you sent the galleys to Mary and not me, then said I had until Wednesday the 18th before sending them back. Since Mary then had to send them to me, I didn’t get them until Monday. Which would have given me only one uninterrupted day with them. No matter; we straightened that out. But I’d like to know your reasoning behind not sending them to me.

I’m sending these back to you directly (not via Mary) because this three way mailing deal makes it more likely that there will be some sort of screw up.

Speaking of screw ups, there were a few in the galleys, I mean apart from the usual typos, etc. one expects and has to live with. Changes in what I wrote or in what I corrected from the manuscript. One stands out: on ms page 258 there was a line, “I’d alienated about half the people I worked with.” I had clearly deleted this line from the manuscript and even added a note as to why I did so. (This is on the record, via a copy of the corrected ms I submitted to you.) Although it’s possible that the typesetter squinted through the deletion and included the line by bizarre accident, I have to assume that it’s possible you undeleted my deletion, out of editorial zeal or for other reasons. The content of the line is of course significant, given the deterioration of our relationship. Perhaps you wanted that line in for personal reasons.

Well, maybe I’m being paranoid here. As I say, your cutting off communications with me at this vital time has been upsetting.

I’ve sent my collected communications to you to Mary to see if she can figure out your assertion that I’ve insulted you in my correspondences. As mentioned in my last email (which you didn’t respond to), I couldn’t find anything. Given the worries I rightly or not have as a result of how things are going between us, I want to put as much on the record as I can. (I’m also sending this letter via a separate mailing, just to be sure you get it and that it’s on the record that you got it.)

In thinking about this – believe me, I’ve done a bit – your early on words, “I don’t know why I treat you different from my other writers” come back. (You’re assertion that it’s because I’m “so brilliant” certainly has a disingenuous ring to it.) You don’t know, I don’t know. Certainly, the fact that you didn’t buy my book is a part of it, somehow.

Enough about the past, for now. As far as these galleys go: you told Mary to tell me to use a different color pencil on them than I did on the ms. I won’t be coy here. I used a pen to make it less likely that you’d change anything without my permission – out of editorial zeal or whatever. Perhaps I’m overreacting. But I’ve put more than four years of blood, sweat and tears into this book and I want it the way I want it.

These galleys are my final word on the way my book should be. Do not change anything without my express permission via fax or email.

I’ve added a Note About the Photographs page — for the reasons stated in my email. I’ve inserted it just after the Contents page and before the maps. If you want to put it after the maps, fine. But it goes in.

(I’d like to see the maps, by the way. Make sure they’re accurate, etc.)

The Author’s note – without the damaging stuff – should go in as I’ve amended it.

I’ve deleted the Acknowledgments page. In its stead I’ve inserted a short note thanking the people of Atlantis II for saving my life when Ensenada went down. If you want to know the reasoning behind this change, you can call me. If you don’t like the “A SPECIAL THANKS” title, you can delete it. It may not be necessary. The content does say it all. Up to you.

As far as I can insist on anything, I insist on the following: That you keep me informed about what you’re doing in behalf of my book. (Who you’re sending the galleys to is one example.) And likewise any news that comes in. (Your not informing me of Kem Nunn’s response to my request for a blurb is an example of not doing this.) I would also like to see the flap copy before it goes in. I feel slighted that you haven’t responded to my submission of flap copy – you did tell me to write it. Although I apparently have no say with respect to the copy, I feel justified in strongly requesting that you make no mention of Christopher living “a shockingly corrupt lifestyle” or the like. I don’t want that given away. I’d prefer that the results of my search remain unmentioned.

In my Note About the Photographs I refer to the back cover photo of Shiner and me walking in the field. So if you change that photo to something else, that line of the Note will make no sense. This is good example of why communication is vital (and why I worry about the breakdown). You might not have thought of this.

I want to get my website up and running as soon as possible so critics can go to it if they wish. Therefore, I’m going to ask you one more time to either return my artwork or email it to me. I need it to properly promote both books on this very expensive, very time consuming effort.

Your dislike for me (which was obvious from day one) has me worried about the future of my book – actually, both of them, since Cosmic Banditos’ success is at least partially tied to Zero’s. Since you didn’t buy Zero, you don’t have the same stake in it that you would had you bought it.

I trust that you will keep in mind that it’s in your company’s best interest that my books succeed.

Yours truly,

The sticky colored labels I’ve affixed to the galleys are for clarification purposes. I’ve rewritten the stuff I put in the ms in case my handwriting is illegible. The paragraph I put back in on page 0369 is taped there because that is the clearest way to do it. (In your protocol letter you stated that if changes in the galleys go over a certain percentage, there may be a charge to me. If there is some expense involved in putting the paragraph – or anything else — back in, fine, bill me. I do assume, however, that in figuring the cumulative percentage of changes, the mistakes made in typesetting that I’ve corrected are not added to my editorial changes.)