Imagine that you established a publishing company, and decided to call it “The Little Penguin.” You chose orange and white colors for your logo, which contained a cute, flightless bird. Rest assured, there would be letters from lawyers, and if necessary, a lawsuit coming your way from the global publisher, the Penguin Group. The legal arguments would rest on copyright infringement, all the costs involved in maintaining their “good name,” etc. There is a small army of lawyers who put bread and butter on the table, and a Lexus in the garage, by protecting copyrights and companys’ good names.

Where are the lawyers now? The Riverhead publishing house, a subsidiary of the Penguin Group, published a book entitled “Love and Consequences” which proved to be a complete fraud, and had to be withdrawn. My previous article outlined the events surrounding this fraud. So, a month later, what happened? Riverhead is officially “saddened” by this event, per “Publishers Weekly.”

Saddened! Saddened? Saddened as in the passing of an old friend. Saddened as in having to redraw a cash machine of a best seller. If I had been systematically duped over a three year period, spent much time and effort on this book, had my judgment and the company’s good name besmirched by not having detected that this was a fraud, a few words beside “saddened” come to mind. It would be nice to see a little “outrage,” and given that the same publishing house issued the “A Million Little Pieces” semi-fraud, it would also restore some confidence if there was a grim determination never to allow this to happened again, instead of a Rumsfeldian shrug, and a “Stuff Happens” answer.

One could envision another, much more constructive response, whose objective would be to make the next fraud much more difficult.

Start with a statement that Riverhead will take all legal means available to recover funds dispensed, as well as lost. In addition, there would be a hefty price tag placed on the company’s “good name” in such legal proceedings. Perhaps Ms. Jones / Seltzer no longer has any funds. A reasonable judgment against her would prevent her from profiting by this fraud in the future, by, for example, writing a true story on how she snookered the Penguin Group, or even what her real relationship is with her true family. That was the purpose of the “Son of Sam” law – to prevent a criminal from profiting from his crime by writing about it. Of course as is well-known, and no doubt advised, the downside of legal action is that the exact inter-workings of this book’s publication and promotion would be exposed to scrutiny. In addition, Riverhead could announce a change in its existing policy of an editor / author special relationship. Not every word in the book need be fact-checked, just a simply one hour background check on the person, no more than you would do on any employee.

Meanwhile, over at the New York Times, its star reviewer, Michiko Kakutani, who called Ms Jones / Seltzer’s book “humane and deeply affecting” issued no apology or even deemed to make a statement on how she was fooled, only a mild resolution, via the Public Editor, to be “extra skeptical about such books” in the future. Since the actual writing in the book did not ring false because Ms. Kakutani obviously knows little about the true conditions in South Central LA, I find myself having to apply her resolution to herself, and find myself “extra skeptical” of her reviews. For example, her latest review, on “The Bin Ladens” which she terms “riveting,” one might ask what her knowledge actually is of the Bin Ladens to make such a judgment. The book may be excellent, and I may read it, but Kakutani’s imprimatur has been diminished.

The NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, did do his appointed task, and dutifully reviewed the Times responsibility in this fiasco. The article started by indicating that “a few computer keystrokes” could have revealed that Ms. Jones was not who she said she was. It concluded with “lessons learned,” and he even published my letter on his column:

Thank you for your column on the “Love and Consequences” book fraud. Over all, you covered a number of points that were of concern, and admitted that with a few keystrokes and five minutes’ time, the whole matter could have been uncovered before publication — something that should not be too onerous for the newspaper of record.

In particular, I am willing to accept your explanation at face value that Michiko Kakutani, the chief book reviewer at The Times, and Charles McGrath, a former Book Review editor and the father of the book’s editor, barely knew each other, which was a point of concern.
But there are points you didn’t cover:

1. I strongly feel that you should have pushed the publisher on its own changes for the future. And you did not even raise the possibility of a Margaret.k.collusion of the publishing house with Margaret Seltzer a B. Jones.

How could it be that it took three years to finalize the book, and during this time nothing appeared out of the ordinary?

2. I don’t understand how Ms. Kakutani, given such major red flags as Ms. Jones buying a cemetery plot with the money from her first drug sale, not to mention her Indian-white self being placed in a black foster home, could still give the book a glowing review.

3. There are still literary frauds out there, uncovered. Will The Times be willing to uncover at least one other, as an act of atonement for being “fooled again”?

John Paul Jones
Albuquerque, March 20, 2008

National Public Radio (NPR) did a couple germane follow-up stories which involved focusing on the people of South Central LA. One was an interview with a Rev. James Jones who had only spoken to Ms. Jones / Seltzer on the phone, and thought she was black. The other was an article by Karen Bates which concluded with a statement by TV writer David Mills, who was obviously upset by the fraud, in regards to Ms. Jones / Seltzers future job prospects in the TV – movie industries: “If I have anything to do about it, I hope she finds another way to make a living,” he says. However, NPR did not address the issue of how this fraud was perpetrated within the publishing and reviewer industries. A central issue was avoided if the chances for the next fraud are to be diminished.

Truthdig printed the sad apology from the reviewer, Yxta Murray, which was referenced in my previous article. They took no further action in regards to the true conditions in South Central, by actually talking to a resident, nor addressing the problems of the fraud-prone publishing industry /reviewers. Of interest though, was a negative review of Tom Brokaw’s new book, “Boom!” proving that reviewers can be critical, and not just be an adjunct of the publishing industries PR departments.

The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) felt it sufficient to only do the one article, reported in my previous article, which elected to focus not on the author’s crime, but on the fact that her sister “squealed” on her.

It seems to be the nature of establishments, be they the Catholic Church, the military, the food industry, or the many others, to deflect outside inquiry or review of their decision making process. Each establishment tends to become more insular, and reluctant to change their procedures. One might hope that the book industry could be different, but that sentiment is probably as naïve as those who believed in the Jones / Seltzer book. No one expressed any interest in “atonement” by discovering another published fraud extant, so we all will be relying on that truthful sister for the next revelation.

John Paul Jones was a Medical Corpsman during the Vietnam War. He worked in hospital administration in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia over a 25 year period, from 1978 to 2003, with a four year “sabbatical” in the middle. He believes that all too many of the mistakes made by the United States in South East Asia are being replicated in South West Asia today. You can learn more about him at The Taza Press.

WHAT'S NEXT?

Subscribe via RSS or Email  ::     ::  Leave a comment

Bookmark to: