Lee Goldberg: I Didn't Do It For the Money!
Over at Reason Magazine, Cathy Young has written an article about fan fiction in which she talks about the usual things, Shakespeare, the Internet, etc... and Lee Goldberg. Namely, that he only wrote that Monk tie-in for the money:

The vehemently anti-fanfic writer Lee Goldberg, who blogs at leegoldberg.com, is the author of several authorized novels based on the TV shows Monk and  Diagnosis Murder—a contradiction he defends on the grounds that he does it only for the money.

Lee was apparently on vacation, far away from Google, which is why it took him a while to respond:

A number of people have sent me Cathy Young's thoughtful and interesting article about fanfiction.  I have written extensively on my blog about fanfiction, particularly my view that the practice of publishing it in print and on the Internet infringes on the original author's creative rights (not to mention the trademark and copyright issues). I've argued that fanfiction writers should get the permission of the author or rights holder before distributing their work. If the original author or rights holder  has no problem with fanfiction based  on their  work, then I don't either. I have also said that licensed tie-in fiction, which I have written, differs significantly on ethical and legal grounds from fanfiction because it is done with the consent, participation and supervision of the original author or rights holder. At no point have I *ever* expressed the views that she incorrectly (and I have to assume deliberately) attributed to me. It's a shame, because her article would have been far more informative, and fair, if she'd bothered to accurately reflect my actual opinions on the subject. I look forward to seeing a correction in the next issue of REASON. Do you think they will have the journalistic integrity to run a correction? Or should I assume that they have the same standards for accuracy as  Cathy Young?

Young posts an answer to Goldberg and still misses the point:

Now, on to the second part. Did Goldberg ever defend his tie-in novels on the grounds that he only writes them for the money? Sure he did, on the very same blog where he now claims to have been misrepresented. In fact, he devoted an entire post to this point on June 16, 2005: [S]omeone asked what the difference is between someone who writes tie-ins and someone who writes fanfic... beyond the fact that tie-ins are written with the consent of the author/right's (sic) holder. There's a big difference. I was hired to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER and MONK novels. It's something I am being paid to do. It's not like I woke up one morning with a burning desire to write DIAGNOSIS MURDER novels, wrote one up, and sent it off to a publisher (or, as a fanficcer would do, posted it on the web). The publisher came to me and asked me to write them. I would never write a book using someone else's characters unless I was hired to do so. It would never even occur to me because the characters aren't mine. Given a choice, I would only write novels and TV shows of my own creation. But I have to make a living and I take the work that comes my way...and that includes writing-for-hire, whether it's on someone else's TV show or original tie-in novels based on characters I didn't create. Ultimately, however, what motivates me as a writer is to express myself...not the work of someone else. That's the big difference between me and a fanficcer. Given a choice, fanficcers "write" fanfic. (The numerous italics are all in the original.)

Lee is not pleased and his cooler brother Tod steps in to defend him, calling everybody "fucktards" and making fun of Young's Xena fanfic:

4. Ms. Young says, in regards to Lee, "I singled out this argument because I found it particularly bizarre -- it's the first time I have seen paid hackwork held up as morally superior to an unpaid labor of love..." I have to agree, if only as it relates to Ms. Young's fascinating 89,000 word essay (that's an estimate) on a storyline in Xena concerning, uhm, one character and another character and god, and heavy petting and, uh, shit...I can't go on...must step away from the screen and commence with mockery...it's Xena! Now, Ms. Young, c'mon, if you're going to call Lee's tie-in novels "hack work" then what, exactly, is the artistic value of Xena, the Warrior Princess? Not to disparage the writers of Xena (or a friend of mine who actually starred in the show for a couple seasons), but it's not as if the culture shifted in their seats when Xena first debuted and thought, oh, oh, that's some groundbreaking shit, that's some stuff that's making my cathode ray fucking sizzle, that some TV that makes me have vibrant jerk off fantasies about women wearing animal skins (well, okay, score one on that point...women in pelts are hot...but then so, too, is Lorenzo Llamas). So while your essay is actually well-written (and here I admit: I've read lots of Young's essays and columns and find her frequently to be entertaining and interesting), what do we call an academic essay that explicates pure fucking drivel? Circle jerking comes to mind, but that would be inelegant of me. So, how about: Intellectual bukkake? And the moral superiority of anything depends on the morals of the person making the judgment, so, as an amoral asshole, I'm going to rule in the favor of my brother here in hopes of garnering better birthday gifts next year.

I'll be in the corner, curled in fetal position, muttering about adult behaviour.