"Start today for as little as $999."

God bless the free market, eh?

I love the section where they explain how much money their authors are going to make.

Have you written a manuscript and you’re tired of being rejected by the traditional publishing houses?

Like PublishAmerica?

Yet another upside--the possible improvement in slushpiles everywhere.

You do have Scalzi's recipe for schadenfreude pie, right?

Re #3: Heh, indeed, has Travis sent an MS yet?

Conservatives turn to PODs? Turnabout is fair play.

I'm with ya there, Teresa, on being torn. Hmm, publishing scam, but they're targeting authors I potentially don't really want to see get ahead. Hmmm.

"The problem is, most publishing houses shun conservative authors. Liberal authors get their foot in the door while conservative authors get the door slammed in their faces!"

Yeah. I mean, just go into your local bookstore and wander into the political commentary section. You can feel the left-wing agenda oozing out of the shelves. Oh, wait, that's from when those liberal books are squished between the onslaught of Coulter, Rush, and Hannity and their ilk pulp-fiction diatribes. Clean-up on aisle six.

Is Townhall a "vanity" publisher?

No. Vanity publishers will charge you thousands of dollars to print a truckload of books, which they will not help you distribute.

Let's see now... As it happens, I have here an example of a book from a small press that uses Lightning Source to produce its print books. I paid the publisher nothing. I received five author copies, as did my co-author. The book is not just "available to order" but is part of the distribution deal the publisher negotiated with Borders, and books from the publisher are available on the shelf in my local Borders. Cover price is $12.99, which is fairly typical for a trade paperback of that length. Royalties are 7% of cover price.

Or of course, I could publish it through Townhall, and pay a mere $999.99, plus whatever the author discount price is on ten copies. Let's see -- the cover price will be $17.99 (a very reasonable price compared with the $12.99 at my current publisher), so the 40% discount as the author will bring that down to $10.80 per copy, plus shipping. Yes, only a thousand and a bit, so technically not thousands, if you round down. Now, I won't receive any royalties or distribution on the basic service, but I could upgrade to one of the premium packages, where not only will I receive royalties but it will be available through Amazon *and* can be ordered by any bookshop that chooses to do so. Of course, those packages will cost thousands, but they're quite right about not printing the truckload of books...

Dear God, it really is like shooting fish in a barrel.

I guess I'm just imagining all those books for sale by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the Swift Boat Veterans, etc.

Oh. Oh, that's just beautiful. *sits back and contemplates the beauty*

Although I have to say the second book TBogg quotes has the potential to be a rip-roaring good read:

For Such a Time As This is a five week Bible study that challenges single Christians to discover and surrender to God’s purpose and plan for them, and truly experience the great, unsearchable riches of Christ while serving and placing Him first in one’s life. Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve.

Oh dear, oh dear--the squishy liberal part of me wants to help warn. . .but I have books to write and people to see and grandkids to babysit and breadlines to help on and vigil lines to stand on and letters to editors to send and. . .

Oh dear, oh dear, did I miss my chance?

Jane

Is it OK for someone to rip off people you don't like?

(Would you be surprised to find out they have another domain name where they do the exact same thing except substitute a few words in the description of the manuscripts that Large Corporate Publishers won't accept?)

Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve.

Whaat? Where did the golf course thing come from?

I mean, the others I can see. The three Israelites tried in the furnace (Shadrach, Mesach and Abed-nego; yes, I too won a prize for Scripture Knowledge when I was a nipper at prep school), obviously. Intensive care - miraculous recovery. McDonalds - well, there's a long tradition of "however mean the job, God ennobles it".

But Augusta?

Alternative interpretation:
Walk through the scorching fires of Nebuchadnezzar’s unmerciful furnace, grace the twinkling, rolling hills of the Augusta National Golf Course, and witness God’s miraculous Hand in a crowded back booth in McDonald’s and a stressful intensive care unit on Christmas Eve. 14 days. Book your tour places now online. Guests are warned that the tour may be physically strenuous.

Maybe they'll publish Conservapedia in book form!

Seth #12: That was my first thought as well, but they (like Townhall.com) appear to be a part of Salem Communications, all of whose holdings are right-wing and/or Christian media outlets.

Judging by the size of Salem and News Corp, it's hard to not scoff every time I hear complaints about how the "New York Liberal Media" (who publish folks like Bill Bennett and Rush Limbaugh, incidentally) are keeping the conservatives down.

With apologies to Wittgenstein: what one need not speak about, one should pass over in silence.

The idea that a publishing house would reject a book because it represents a Conservative (or Liberal or whatever) viewpoint is funny to me. My understanding of the industry is that publishers exist to make money. If they think a book will sell, they buy it, if not, they don't. Since when could publishers/editors afford to buy a book that won't sell simply because they don't agree with the message, or turn away a book that will sell simply because they don't agree with the message. It's a business. The individuals involved all have different perspectives and political ideals, but when it comes to buying books, their job is to make sure that they make money. They can save their political editorials for their own books and blogs.

Oops, I meant
"Since when could publishers/editors afford to buy a book that won't sell simply because they agree with the message..." Please ignore that first don't.

(maniacal laughter)

(wipes tears from face)

ooohhh, man is that funny.

I feel sorry for neocon knuckleheads getting taken by this about as much as I feel sorry for Rush Limbaugh getting caught on prescription shopping and busted coming back from a possible sex tour.

Has it occurred to anybody that this is the Liberal conspiracy to keep conservative authors out of traditional publishing houses? I mean, if they're publishing through Townhall, they're not still submitting to actual publishers, are they?

All it takes is 3-4 mean-spirited liberals... wait, haven't I had this discussion before?

#12 Seth Breidbart, well, it's not okay for *me* to rip them off. But then, I have principles and scruples. Given the blathering on about "the market providing" and "market forces" form the right, I see this more along the lines as a "plague upon both (their) houses."

That said, money flows toward the author. And I'll say that to anybody who asks.

I guess a lot depends upon whether one's goal is "better books" or "better books that I agree with."

We could warn them, but we're liberals so obviously any warning from us is part of the liberal conspiracy to keep them out of print.

I find the neat recursion of this concept ... shiny.

Turned down by a "traditional" publisher? Gasp, I never knew PublishAmerica rejected conservatives.

Hmm ... what happens if we do a quick reformat from Project Gutenberg and submit Das Kapital to these folks?

@#20 Scott: Shhh...

Would they turn down a book for being too liberal?

Seth (12), that's why I'm torn. No one deserves to be ripped off. On the other hand ...

#25: Do you want to mock these people who are providing such a service to the conservative movement?

For shame.

I guess the scammers have realized that the reality-based community isn't a good target market for them. Targeting people who believe that there's a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to Silence Conservative Voices (i.e. Neocon Nutjobs) is a much cleverer scam.

As Charlie pointed out, if Teresa (or anyone in the RBC) told them it was a scam, would they listen? Of course not. She's part of the conspiracy.

This reminds me of the scene where the hero tries to save the villian but can't, and the villain falls into the flames/grinder/devouring maw. The hero goes "Damn! I tried my best!" and the audience goes "YAYYYYYY!"

Sigh...in that moment between clicking post and posting, I noticed that I spelled 'villain' two different ways. A before I after L. Or something.

Teresa (28) I think Charlie has it right. Go ahead and warn them. You stay true to your principles, and get to laugh even harder when they don't listen.

Would it be too evil to point out that:
* townhallpress.com is hosted on a server owned by Nippon Telephone and Telegraph?
* To avoid revealing their identities, the people who purchased the domain name used an anonymous domain registration service in the Cocos Islands?

If they're good, upstanding citizens, they have nothing to fear from liberals invading their privacy, do they? Or do they have something to hide? Inquiring minds want to know, especially now that News of the World is no more.

ajay #13: perhaps the Augusta National Golf Course is there to demonstrate that all that camels-through-the-eyes-of-needles bit is just liberal hippie propaganda?

On the whole, though, I think I'll go with your second interpretation.

Well, while I am fascinated by the concept of a twinkling golf course, the whole Miraculous Hand of God in a Back Booth At McDonalds sounds a little bit pervy to me. Not that I have anything against erotica or romance novels - I just prefer that my heroes be a little less Alpha/Dom/Masher. I wouldn't rule out borrowing the book from a library though. For research purposes, of course.

I honestly don't see the problem. Any action or that harms conservatives is, more or less by definition, a Good Thing. I'd go so far as to argue that even the scammers themselves are engaging in a morally neutral act; no doubt the virtue inherent in harming republicans cleanses their grimy littls souls of the sin inherent in the theft.

Did Peter Crossman get a blowjob from these folks before getting Religion?!

Do not warn them. The best, and only thing to do, is to ignore the matter altogether and move on.

Why?

Because not only will they not believe anything coming from a member of the VLC, but, once they realize that they have been scammed, they're going to find a way to put the blame on said VLC and in particular the ones that are now known to them.

It's like getting in the middle of a troll fight. You're not going to get any rationality here. All one can do is make sure the trolls do their arguing somewhere away from you.

#25: Hmm ... what happens if we do a quick reformat from Project Gutenberg and submit Das Kapital to these folks?

If you include $999 in the same envelope, I bet they accept it.

Meanwhile...

#8: Is Townhall a "vanity" publisher?

No. Vanity publishers will charge you thousands of dollars to print a truckload of books, which they will not help you distribute.

No, not a vanity publisher! Townhall will charge you thousands of dollars (the $999 is just to get in the door) but they won't print a truckload of books! Rather than paying the money and getting firewood for the winter you pay the money and get nothing.

Here I was, trying to imagine who in the wide weird world of wonderment could possibly deserve to be victimized by PODscammers more than just about anybody else, and hooray!— Making Light came through with the answer once again.

Thanks Making Light!

Jon @ #38: "once they realize that they have been scammed, they're going to find a way to put the blame on said VLC"

Ah, you haven't carried it all the way through. If the VLC doesn't tell them, they'll blame the VLC for not offering gratuitous advice they would have ignored.

I think the straightforward way to look at it this:

For every thousand dollars some neocon nutjob spends on a vanity press putting his consiracy theories into print, that's a thousand dollars that won't go to Bush's third reelection campaign effort.

It sounds like they're appealing to the 27 percenters who'd support Bush even if he grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat wings.

I don't think reason will work with these folks. Best to allow them to choose the action that will result in the least amount of damage to the country.

As Townhall Press says of their lead author, award-winning Doug Giles, "...the little voices in his head still won't go away."

Looks like they've got their market pretty-well figured out.

Charlie (33): No kidding? They're going to that much trouble to hide their roots? Cool! It's much more fun to shoot at people who know they're doing wrong.

Lord-a-mercy! I just looked to see which awards Doug Giles has won.

Remember the Communicator Awards? Doug has two of them!

I'd have thought the correct course of action was obvious: rail loud and long against this scam. Make it clear that you're one of those smarty-pants liberals who thinks they know what's best, and that what's best for anyone thinking of using Townhall Press is to keep their money. They'll flock to it out of sheer spite, and you'll get to have your schadenfeude pie and eat it too.

I guess the scammers have realized that the reality-based community isn't a good target market for them.

Nah, they just realized that despite all the stereotypes about champagne-swilling limousine liberals, we don't have a lot of money.

Das Kapital in the original is NOT in the public domain, the government of Germany owns the copyright and does NOT want it in print in Germany.

Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

#45, Macdonald.

Oh, my! I missed that thread those five years ago... I think these folks deserve some Hogus and a Black Hole or two for Professionalism (rather, lack thereof), which have more open and honest voting involved! (Something about peer awards, peer over one another's shoulder and outbid one another for the votes....)

Scott H (#36): So it's good that anybody who disagrees with you should be hurt? Are you capable of seeing the results if everybody thought similarly?

Paula (#48): In the US, Das Kapital is public domain.

Paula@48: Are you sure you're not thinking about Mein Kampf?

Paula, I wonder if you are thinking of Mein Kampf as opposed to Das Kapital.

Paula@48: Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

I think England has "Peter Pan" under an infinite copyright term.

Didn't know about "Das Kapital" though.

Dang, beat to the punch . . .

You're right, it 's Mein Kampf I was thinking of. Duh...

I think England has "Peter Pan" under an infinite copyright term.

No, it was willed to the Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London. I remember because I used to get pediatric research papers from them.

But we could be saying the same thing, since England has a national health care system, unlike certain other countries I could name.

Hm, my bad. Maybe someone who understands the Peter Pan situation (obviously not me) could explain it a bit more on the wikipedia article. Peter Pan is currently listed under the perpetual copyright article with a vague mention that it is only sort of a copyright. What exactly is perpetual, if anything, is unclear.

CosmicDog #17:

This is even funnier, given that there are (as several people have pointed out) a lot of conservative books out there. In fact, this is one of the results of lots of think-tank jobs for conservatives, which often amount to academic jobs without any teaching load, and leave some time for writing books.

Nobody deserves to get ripped off. But I do find it interesting that the scam here plugs into the "The Liberal Establishment won't let some ideas be discussed" meme, which is one that's definitely pushed by conservatives. Now, there are definitely limits on what you can get discussed in the MSM--see the discussion on the Overton window from a few months back. But:

a. Nothing remotely like mainstream conservative thought fails to fall in that window. See Fox News, most talk radio, CBN and other Evangelical Christian television productions, the Wall Street Journal, etc.

b. This seems not to apply so much to books. Charles Murray and Pat Buchannan and Thomas Sowell and David Friedman have all published a bunch of books, despite being spread out across the right end of the political spectrum. (Friedman is libertarian, though, not conservative; the spectrum has too few dimensions.)

I've noticed this before: part of the underlying "story" a lot of conservatives tell themselves about their place in the world involve some kind of persecution by the mainstream media. And maybe this is even historically accurate--certainly, it looks like in the days of three TV networks, the window was a lot narrower, and probably kept all kinds of ideas out of public discourse. But some part of the modern conservative movement seems tied up in a kind of persecution complex--the MSM not letting any conservative views be aired, meddlesome judges at war with Christianity, reporters and Democrats and public intellectuals undermining our troops, etc. And it's weird. I mean, I can see feeling like the MSM won't let your views be heard under some circumstances, but isn't it hard to do that when you're a conservative, and you've got to mute Fox News so your complaint can be heard? Isn't the "people in power are persecuting our kind" line hard to believe when your side's been in power for six years?

Jim (45), I figuratively fall upon the floor and roll about laughing ...

Two of them! Pray tell, in what categories?

Seth (50), Jim Macdonald and I, and many others as well, have spent hundreds of hours working with writers' websites and newbie authors, trying to educate them about publishing scams and how the industry works. One of our greatest frustrations is the unwillingness of many writers to believe that an agency or publisher that's offering them a quick and easy path to literary success may not actually have their best interests at heart.

POD self-publication scams are some of the hardest to address, because they're constructed from an abbreviated set of the same tinkertoys used to build the real publishing industry. For instance, there's the claim they all make that "Your book will be available in thousands of bookstores all over the country." Since newbie writers don't know any better, they assume it means that their books will be physically present on bookstore shelves. They're mistaken. What it actually means is that if a customer already knows about the book and wants to buy a copy, they can go to a bookstore, have them put in a special order, prepay the entire amount, and come back and get the book when it arrives.

Yog's Law states that money should always flow toward the writer. It's a good and useful rule. However, it can be difficult to track where and in what direction the money is flowing. Another way to judge a non-academic publisher is dead simple: do they have a distribution deal, beyond making their books available via online bookstores and special orders? If not, and if the books they publish don't have a built-in audience (say, they're about how to build your own navigational tracking devices for small sailboats, or they're erotic novels tailored to the exacting specifications of a rare variety of fetishist), you can safely say the publisher is either crooked or clueless.

It's a complicated point. Many otherwise intelligent writers refuse to believe it until they've been run through the mill a few times. Some don't believe it even then.

I don't doubt that Townhall.com's authors run true to form. Everything they need to know about this subject is available to them at Making Light, Absolute Write, and other sites. There's no mechanism that keeps right-wingers from doing a spot of research and finding those sites before signing the contract. I've done everything I can; and yet I know that many writers will fail to heed the warnings.

I don't believe that anyone deserves to be robbed. It's just that when I contemplate this bunch, it hurts a lot less than usual.

And by the way? One more odd wayward fact? In general, authors are a left-leaning class. You can always find notable exceptions, but on average they're a left-of-center bunch. I think it may be significant that I know of exactly one writers' forum where loud, unoriginal, standard-variety right-wing sentiments are the norm: the Publish America Message Board.

Greg @ 42 It sounds like they're appealing to the 27 percenters who'd support Bush even if he grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat wings.

If Shrub grew a tentacle-beard and sprouted bat-wings, I'd be tempted to vote for him. But only if he announced that nice senator Palpatine as his running mate.

Greg #57 --

The Peter Pan copyright was willed to the Greater Ormond Street Children's Hospital in London; like other copyright holders, they control the rights and collect royalities. As of January 2008, they will continue to collect royalties, but will no longer control the rights.

That's the surface story. The machinations of how that works . . . I have no idea.

The legislation on the Great Ormond Street Hospital and _Peter Pan_ can be found at
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_28.htm#sdiv6

Albatross (58), you're right. They adore the idea that they're a persecuted minority, even when they're having to make up their persecution out of whole cloth.

Much-rejected writers also tend to feel they've been unjustly denied the success that's due them. It's a perfect combination.

I'd love to see a list of "published" titles that result from this.

Then I can keep an eye out for them in the 25 cent book bin at the Goodwill Thrift Center.

Greg: Basically, they don't hold a copyright. There is a parliamentary order that anybody reproducing or adapting the story should pay them a fixed royalty. But they don't get (e.g.) the right to deny a licence, or impose any other terms on the use of the work, or to fix that royalty themselves. It would also likely not apply to any works that were not adaptations of the story, but rather derivitives of it in some other form (e.g. a sequel).

At last, there's a place that will publish those scathing slice-of-life masterpieces about how The Only Reason I Didn't Get that Position Is Because They Had to Hire a Black Woman with Three Times My Credentials, and how ever since America ceased to be a meritocracy where people knew their places and prayed in schools, we've begun to fall like the Roman Empire! 'Cause you can't find stuff like that anywhere else, and we are all the poorer for it.

I absolutely do not believe that anybody deserves to get ripped off. But I do cherish the warm, fuzzy feeling that comes from imagining how many dollars that might otherwise go into right-wing election coffers will be going to a vanity press instead.

In a just world, Townhall Press would be the only press the Limbaughs, Hannitys and Coulters would be published after Regnery was hit by the comet's fireball.

Snarl. "place the Limbaughs etc."

#64 Then I can keep an eye out for them in the 25 cent book bin at the Goodwill Thrift Center.

No, you won't find them there. Why not? Because the books won't physically exist. That's the beauty of vanity POD. You pay for publishing but the books are never printed. Meanwhile the publisher tells you that's a good thing.

#69: What, you don't think the proud new author won't buy a stack for Christmas presents?

Liberal authors get their foot in the door while conservative authors get the door slammed in their faces

Yeah, sure, we get our foot in the door, but that's when those mean liberal publishers slam the door. Thus do they in one fell swoop break our toes and our faces.

No longer satisfied with applying artificial grass to blogs, conservatives have hit upon a new scheme - pods. Harking back to the old conservatism that gave rise to "Return of the Body Snatures", new-line conservatives are taking a page from their pink o'enemies, and growing their own voters in pods.

thanbo 72: That's what I meant above by "turnabout is fair play," but no one got it.

Okay, it's very hard to feel sorry for the authors who are being ripped off.

Feel sorry for the libraries.

Every so often we get a person who wants a copy of an obscure book: sometimes self-published, sometimes a small publisher that's a step removed from self-publishing, sometimes just a book that's very old. And said person is very, very upset that we don't stock the book. Our failure to stock the book is part of a liberal conspiracy. (Did you know that ALA wants to corrupt children with teh sex and teh communism? Yeah). We must interlibrary-loan the book (at considerable expense).

To be fair, I've gotten this from a liberal once, who proceeded to harangue me for fifteen minutes about the state of the country ("Yes, that's true...") and the state of library funding ("Oh, I absolutely agree..."). But nine times out of ten, it's people who want some conservative Bible prophecy wingnutry.

And, hah, I forgot my original point, which was:

The last thing we need is more obscure conservative books being hawked on the internet, sending people to the library to demand them.

Xopher @ 73, I got it, but wasn't able to come up with a witty (or even particularly intelligible) reply. "We are POD people. Join us..."

On warning them: well, you can try, I suppose.

Recently, I had an email from a wannabe asking, in the usual aggrieved tones, just what the heck he had to do to get published for money, already. All his friends said that his SF was very good, but it kept getting rejected. He was pretty much convinced that the editors were conspiring against him. Should he self-publish? He'd heard that it could be done on-line, practically for free.

I'm sure many here have had the same experience - I'm sure our hosts have.

I replied to the effect that I didn't know about his fiction, but judging on his email, it might help if he made sure his cover letters were correctly spelled and punctuated, and it was always a good idea to spell his intended recipient's name correctly. He answered to the effect that he was sorry about that - he hadn't taken the care he should. This was a hopeful sign, so I said, OK, send me your best story, and I'll look at that and tell you why it's getting rejected, and this might help you fix it.

Perhaps this was hubris on my part. God knows I have enough trouble myself. But I felt I knew more about it than he did, and there was a sense of obligation.

But no story came back. No more correspondence at all. I can feel in my bones that he's talking to a podshop somewhere, and finding, to his joy, that they'll publish him, sure they will, just sign here.

You really can't blame the wolves if the sheep take a ticket and join the queue.

And of course, burned authors will sue Townhall Press. Because their lawsuits aren't frivolous.

Dave you're lucky he didn't glom onto you as the One True Link to Getting Published.

I'm only minorly so (published) but my brother thinks I Have the Secret. I keep trying to impress on him that 1) he needs to find the right publisher, 2) make sure he is getting paid for it and not putting out any money. He writes well. He's trying to sell a novel about Vietnam experiences. But he wants it published so badly that he may go to the dark side. I have cut him off from asking about writing/selling fiction, which is easy because we only see one another at Thanksgiving and Christmas because he lives in Grove, Okla. and I live in Kansas City, MO.

C.E. Petit #33: There is a difference between News of the World which has been around for about a century and a half, and which is currently owned by the Dirty Digger, and Weekly World News which began publication in 1979.

Townhallpress is advertising "We can turn your manuscript into a high-quality book and make it available to 25,000 bookstores".

Notice the weasel-word. Available in bookstores would mean on the shelves, available to readers. Available to bookstores means bookstores can order the book if they somehow divine its existence.

Greg London #53 ::

As I understand it, the only book under perpetual copyright in the UK is the translation of the Bible authorized by King James (I & V?). I suppose it's considered Crown Property, and is exercised primarily to ensure accuracy.

From their site, too, I rather like
"If your last name begins with the letter A - Z, contact Dominique at extension 1103."
You'd think they'd be wary of turning away potential customers whose last name began with a Zapf dingbat, but otherwise supremely efficient.

Emily H, #74, my library system charges for ILL, depending on how far they have to go and how much they spend. I want something the neighboring county has? No problem, no charge. But something that doesn't exist until you order it? Lots of money.

Dave Luckett, #77, there's a guy on rasfw right now who asked us to download his brother's 700-page book, read it, and recommend it to publishers. Someone posted the first paragraph and although everybody but Terry Austin was pretty nice, nobody is encouraging.

Chris @ 83

You'd think a lot of their potential customers would be Dingbats.

The logical side of my brain is telling me no one deserves to get ripped off, but then I think about how these people are supporting a man who's destroying the Constitution--people who in all likelihood support torture, people who, without being melodramatic, endangered my life & the lives of everyone else in New York City by voting the way they did in 2004, people who think I'm a traitor, and it's hard. I don't know--maybe I'm just very, very angry (possibly suffering from Tom Tomorrow's patented Outrage Overload), but god damnit, if Bush & Cheney & Rove & Gonzales aren't going to prison, it'd be nice to see *somebody* suffer. This is cruel and ugly, I know. But it's how I feel.

Greg #86: Watch it--pretty soon Bill O'Reilly will be advising his viewers to change the channel before he reads the scathing hate speech you just spewed there.

"This is the kind of thing that goes on on Making Light every day! Hate! Hate! Hate!"

Oh, I like this! It's beautiful. You're only hypocritical if you don't say anything -- which, of course, you just did; there's hardly any moral obligation to go and tip these folks off on their own turf. First of all, they're not going to listen to liberal bloggers. I mean, have creationists ever shown themselves capable of sense? You've put a warning here. They're perfectly capable of reading it, should they decide to turn around and start reading blogs with sense. They know where you're at. You're just, you know, in the grip of Satan, who doesn't want them published.

I believe this calls for a *sporfle*.

Scott @ 20: my partner, whose morals are different from mine, just said he wishes he'd thought of it.

Fragano @80: There is a difference between News of the World which has been around for about a century and a half, and which is currently owned by the Dirty Digger, and Weekly World News which began publication in 1979.

Yeah: one's a cheap tabloid that peddles a bizarre mish-mash of fabricated nonsense designed to keep the masses amused and distracted, while the other is ...

What was the question again?

(For the uninitiated, "The News of the World" is the Sunday edition of The Sun. And it truly has to be seen to be believed.)

Paula @48, Marx died more than 120 years ago, and his works are public domain.

Hitler, however, died only 62 years ago, so his works are still under copyright. His legal heir is the federal state of Bavaria, which choses not to license the works.

From the TBogg post I clicked through to SOUL BAPTISM, and I'm still laughing. Mind you, at first I thought it was an inter-denominational romance novel ("full fellowship with a tongue-talking Pentecostal"), but it turns out to be theology.

inge #90 : That's interesting. Any idea why it went to the Land rather than the Bundesrepublik?

My understanding is that the rights were given to Bayern (Bavaria) by the Allied occupying powers as part of their siezure and disposal of Hitler's personal and Nazi Party property. Outisde of Germany, Mein Kampf is generally either in the public domain, somehow restricted or prohibited in distribution, or a combination of both. The sequel, the so-called Zweites Buch

There are apparently distant relatives of Hitler that would have a good chance of suing for return of the rights, which would be worth a great deal of money. Reportedly, they do not have any plans to do so.

According to this article, the US government claimed the postwar rights for domestic publication, and happily collected the royalties until the publisher bought the rights from it.

Sorry -- brain burp.

The last sentence of the first paragraph should read: "The sequel, the so-called Zweites Buch, appears to be in the public domain."

Jakob (92): At the time of Hitler's death, there was no recognized Bundesrepublik Deutschland — the US and UK had declared the Third Reich an illegitimate government as part of the prelude to Nuremburg (it's a loooooong, complicated journey down the path of implications from de Groot, so don't ask). The occupying forces applied UK law perforce, and found that the land was the only legitimated government to accept an escheat (return of property to the state when no heir can otherwise be identified). I found this out from Patton's adjutant... who happened to teach property law at my law school (Maj John Cribbet).

And it wasn't just Hitler: That happened pretty much throughout occupied Germany until late 1946 for determining escheats; only then was the BRD recognized and allowed to assert any authority over escheats, and not retroactively.

Fascinating, C.E.

It reminds me of the legal gymnastics around the 1979 Tiede case where you ended up with a US federal judge in a US court on still occupied German territory (Berlin) making decisions according to prewar German law, using US procedures.

Paula Lieberman (#49): Germany and Disney are in collusion regarding, infinite time copyright.

So *they* have the copyright on infinity? Olaf Stapledon and Andrew ("world enough and time") Marvell would be shocked! And HPL would bear a lasting grudge.

Actually, C.E. (95), I don't think you get a Bundesrepublik until after you get a Grundgesetz in 1949. The transitional governments are murky in my memory, but I think until at least 1949 supreme power is held by the Allied Control Council. That council retained some residual powers until at least 1972 with the four-power agreement. Some Allied privileges even remained until after German reunification. (Also until various agreements signed after the fall of the wall, Germany's legal borders were still those of 1938, and western Poland was held to be "under Polish administration," with Kaliningrad (Königsberg) "under Soviet administration." But I digress.)

In general the two trends of early postwar German government are the transition from direct military control and the breakdown of Allied cooperation. Government was rebuilt from the local level upward, with Bavaria, for example, getting its postwar constitution in December 1946. Currency reform and the deutschmark don't come along until 1948, at which time Allied cooperation has deteriorated so badly that the US and UK are working on unifying their zones. Bizonia becomes Trizonia when the French go along, and by then the Allied rupture is deep enough that it enables a couple generations of European politicians to claim they like Germany so much they are glad there are two.

Anyway, having state-level government settling property questions in 47/48 makes total sense.

The very best part, in my opinion: "Authors who choose the BASIC program do not receive royalties." (http://199.238.131.113/prices_programs.htm, popup on the 'Royalties' line item.) So it's not enough that you pay them $999; unless you shell out $1499 for the 'Premium' package, you're doubly screwed. Then again, it's not like there's a whole lot of cash to be had in their royalties structure anyway. (http://199.238.131.113/royalties_discounts.htm)

Charlie Stross #189: One of them has headlines like 'Vicar caught wearing knickers' the other doesn't.... (And the News of the Screws has been around for a hell of a long time -- since 1843 in fact.)

I'm baffled by the assertions I've seen here that every thousand dollars a wannabe author blows on this scheme is a thousand dollars they won't be able to use to further their right-wing cause.

The money is going to townhall.com. If anything, this ensures the wannabe's money will go toward furthering right-wing causes, when it might otherwise have been spent on rent or a vacation or an iPod.

...sorry, the money is going to the people who run townhall.com. Still.

Jen Roth #101: You're assuming that townhall.com will use the money they "earn" to further right-wing causes. I assume that they'll use it for rent or a vacation or an iPod.

Doug (98), in name, you're correct. However, in 1946 the Allied Council empowered itself to collect escheats, as it has determined that certain länder had been abusing their authority, as a caretaker for a future republic. I should have been clearer in saying that the länder had exclusive authority, in the eyes of the Allies, from Yalta until late 1946, to accept escheats... except for escheats related to currency, which the Allies grabbed for themselves from the beginning.

Unfortunately, most of the documentation relating to distribution of assets in occupied Germany is not in public files.

I don't know. If their other ventures isn't very profitable, they'll probably plow the POD money back into them. If this does represent extra profit for them -- well, they still bankroll the right with their political donations.

I think this is just taking money from relatively ineffectual wingnuts and giving it to wingnuts with more political and media power. It doesn't strike me as a win even on a purely practical level.

OK - I've got a question in translating editorese. I've had a book making the rounds, sending it to every appropriate publisher. (Not that many approprate to this particular book.)

In at least six publishers the book got to the following stage. The submittions editor liked it, presented it to the senior editor, it got as far as a meeting, and it was rejected on the following grounds:

1)It is well written
2) It is well researched
3) The potential market is just too small.

I'm going to take 3 as a consensus by experts. Question: for the sake of my ego, can I take 1 and 2 as expert opinions too? Or, since editors are often decent human beings, are 1 & 2 simply a standard politeness when rejecting an MS to which you have given serious consideration?

Er, "if their other ventures aren't very profitable", of course.

Typing + baby = hard.

#77 Dave Luckett

The right to freedom of speech in the USA does not include a right to an audience, and especially does not include a right to a paying audience!

Translated into language that's more vernacular--your right to free speech does NOT include any right forcing or demanding my or anyone else's attendance. You can say whatever you want, you don't have the right to have other people listening, or reading, or being forced to be present to listen or read, your speech/writing.

To my perspective that applies to billboards--people have a right to say what they choose, they don't have the right to stick it in my face on a billboard overlooking public roads....

Ken (91), you mean "full fellowship with a tongue-talking Pentecostal" isn't a euphemism? I am so disappointed.

Jen (101), the only satisfactory answer is that we should start a POD operation specializing in right-wing nutcases and hardcases.

I feel no great desire to save the right wing from a predatory enterprise such as this. They are already besieged by so many parasites (the church, madison avenue, et al) that no amount of intercession will save them from themselves.

Also, I believe townhall's biggest market will be cranky business owners who think that they know it all because they've run a business. I have run into those folks before -- they're just itching for some kind of validation of their ideas, and preaching to their employees lasts only so long.

Don't get me wrong: in the general scheme, I support anybody who wants to write a book and share it with the world. Good or bad, the more discourse, the better. Even a lousy, ill-conceived political commentary is better than another citizen who sits in front of a TV and drools.

Heck, in the course of researching their manifesto, they might come across some actual facts and learn something.

Jen Roth @ 105: You're assuming the owners of Townhall Press actually care about right-wing causes. I don't think they do. I think they've identified a market segment to pitch to in a manner that segment finds appealing ("Your masterpiece isn't being published because you are persecuted for your beliefs"). I don't believe Townhall cares about conservative causes any more than the Christian Literary Agency branch of that hydra that is the Writers Literary Agency cares about Christian causes. It just uses the jargon well.

Don@82: I think you mean "VI and I". (One of the interesting experiences of my first trip to Scotland was seeing a gallery of Stuart portraits, including one labeled "James VIII and III".)

Most of the time I love this site. Then I see people railing on a segment of society that they don't agree with (stereotyped as exactly like a selected bunch of obnoxious blowhards) and saying things basically like "let 'em burn."

Geez, people. "Conservatives" aren't a monolithic bunch any more than "liberals" are, and by your comments you would be shocked and surprised to find out that people you thought of as sane were, in fact conservatives... because I have not run across the types you seem to be envisioning.

Normally I don't get into this— I don't like political vitriol of either stripe, and I hate the assumption that I have to be ashamed because I think differently on political issues than the prevailing view of whichever site I'm visiting.*

I am not saying that conservative "wingnuts" don't exist. (Neither am I saying that liberal "moonbats" don't exist— let's spread that vitriol around a bit while we're at it.) I am saying that generalizing the behavior of the majority from a small vocal sample is a mistake I see all the time and I'm sick of.

The people that Townhall is spamming— and yes, they are spamming, I saw a complaint about it just the other day— are people. By saying that you wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, you're not denying them their humanity, you're lessening your own.

As for me, don't bother to ask me questions, because I'm going to the non-political areas of the site. Which are very, very good, BTW.

*My views will, by the tenor of this post, be judged as conservative, I have no doubt. Whatever you wish— it really shouldn't be as important as commenters are making it out to be, and if it makes you feel better...

B. Durbin @113, and everyone else...

Everyone- if B. Durbin rewrites his comment to take out the gratuitous insults, then that'd be a better comment to respond to. This one, not so much.

B. Durbin-
OK, I won't ask you a question. I'd like to gently request that you check out R.R. Moore's initial comment number 123 in the "Because one of the People She Was Learning To Hate Was me" thread, and see the responses it got. Your comment reminds me of it. (The thread called Flamer Bingo could also be of interest.)

The points you're trying to make in #113 are somewhat hidden behind the gratuitous insults. If you wanted to rewrite the comment sans insults, that could be worth a conversation.

It seems like you know that your comment is being provocative for the sake of being prickly, in that you're claiming you won't have a conversation about it. But if it is provocative it isn't because of what you said (or at least, what you might have wanted to say) but how porcupinedly you said it.

Aconite @111: I was thinking along those very lines... "Why would THP donate to right-wing causes? THP don't care about conservatives and their causes; THP only want to fleece conservatives with causes." ...but then I had a second thought:

How is this any different from the way the right-wing conservatives in power fleece their rank and file?

The Bushes and Cheneys and Roves and Buchanans and etc. of the world don't have any cannibalism taboos. They happily prey on the people who identify as their tribe. I could totally see THP doing something similar: cynically preying on the "schmucks" with fervent beliefs and deep naiveté, and taking the profits from that to feed the perpetual power machine.

...or maybe I need to take off my tin foil cap and admit that the simpler explanation is the one you, along with my first thought, proffered: that THP is solely looking out for #1.

Tinfoil is sharp, but Occam's Razor is even sharper.

Paula # 108: I don't understand how this is a reply to my post. I don't by any means disagree, but would you mind unpacking it a little, so I can see how it follows?

B. Durbin @ 113: I am not saying that conservative "wingnuts" don't exist.

But in your haste to chastize us, you seem to have missed that those are the conservatives we're talking about: the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth.

Would you care to explain to me why I should not take a moment to enjoy circumstances that result in people who call me a traitor and a deviant, who vote to take away my civil rights, who piss on the Constitution, who believe the poor are responsible for their own poverty, who try to force me to live by their interpretation of their religion, and who believe they don't need to research how publishing works or to perfect their craft (ignoring information to the contrary) getting taken in by someone who plays on those beliefs?

The information the wingnuts need to educate themselves that this is a scam setup is freely available. That they won't take the word of The Great Liberal Conspiracy about publishing is whose fault, exactly?

As I've said above, I don't believe these people deserve to be scammed. Nobody does, even people who call me a traitor, deviant, etc. But hey, I've tried to warn 'em and been spat at for my trouble. I'm not going to pretend it's not delicious to watch the results of their willful ignorance play out after that.

If you didn't mean for your post to rack up as many troll points as it did, I suggest you take a moment or two and read those links Kathryn from Sunnyvale gave you in #114. They can help people who don't mean to sound like trolls avoid sounding like trolls.

Well, it may be my poor internet connection, but B Durbin's post didn't really look like trollery to me‡. It looked like a reaction I have myself, often, on threads here, when we get a little heated.

If we're only celebrating the ripping off of the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth, that's one thing*. I'm not sure that has been made very clear in all the comments.

But an unpublished author, who can't see the flaws in his or her book, will grasp at any straw to explain why it didn't get published. This site gives them that straw, whether or not their books are actually conservative commentary†.

So unless this press is somehow filtering for a'holes, they're going to be taking money from, and wasting the time and joy of, people who are writing pretty much anything and looking for a reason - any reason - that they are being rejected.

And I haven't gotten to the point that I can celebrate that kind of grinding down. Maybe I'm just too far away from the US right now.

-----
‡ and yes, thank you, I have read the referenced threads.
* I'm not sure I'm mad keen on it either, mind, but that isn't the thrust of this comment.
† For instance, how would an author whose badly written mystery story featured a protagonist who happened to be conservative (not obnoxious) read a rejection letter in the light of this spam? "Maybe they rejected it because my detective is conservative?"

The chastising of this publisher, purely as a vanity-press POD, has already started in the usual places.

This is apart from the commentary here, which isn't one of the usual places for warnings about publishers.

My views will, by the tenor of this post, be judged as conservative

Well, no, not really. I have a number of conservatives in my life who have lovely manners. I would tend to base any analysis of your political leanings from facts rather than tenor:

the fact that while you say you've spent time at TownHall, you claim to have never run into a wingnut.

the fact that despite not ever having run into anyone you identified as irrational or extreme in their "conservatism"* in the discourse at TownHall, the meanspirited tone of the conversation here offends you

The coming in with fists flying thing doesn't much help either, although I tend to discount that initially, as (although it is a marker) you may not have learned it at a right-wing site. There are other possible credible explanations.

*I have to agree with you that people who traffic in the type of discourse you don't find offputting don't deserve the label "conservative," but sadly all but a very few traditional conservatives have handed it over to them in return for the chance to win at the polls. Now they're not even doing that. I suppose it got them two deeply reactionary Supreme Court justices, but I wonder how the more thoughtful amongst them sleep sometimes.

abi @ 118: If we're only celebrating the ripping off of the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth, that's one thing*

First, it's "the ones who believe their books aren't being published because of the Great Liberal Conspiracy Against the Real Truth and who refuse to listen to anyone who says otherwise," at least on my part.

Second, I'm not celebrating it. Nobody deserves to get ripped off. But I'm no saint, either, and watching people who've caused me and mine much damage take a bit of damage themselves despite efforts to help them steer clear, and take that damage precisely because of those attitudes and actions that caused so much misery to others, has a feel of cosmic justice to it that I find appealing. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. To categorize that as "vitriol," as B. Durbin appears to do, seems excessive.