(Post a new comment)

	lukita 2004-10-06 11:19 am UTC (link)
	I think it's sad that the only thing I want to know is... who's the publisher? (Reply to this)

	xero_sky 2004-10-06 11:31 am UTC (link)
	All wank aside... what crappy cover art. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	thwackboom 2004-10-06 11:35 am UTC (link)
	Hallelujah, hallelujah, amen. Given how big fandom is, well, you'd think they'd find a better artist and designer. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	shinigami_co 2004-10-06 05:14 pm UTC (link)
	Those were my thoughts. It looks like some weird bootleg supplement to BESM. (/geek) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	misswindy 2004-10-06 11:44 am UTC (link)
	My thoughts: if you'd like to wax philosophical about this issue, you might want to get a LiveJournal. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	mpoetess 2004-10-06 11:11 pm UTC (link)
	nod Or repost it in fandom_lounge; that seems like an appropriate place for more theoretical discussion. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

oysteria
2004-10-07 08:24 am UTC (link)

Yep. And if the fandom_lounge discussion descends into wank, as I've noticed these turimel-related posts so often do, he can always report that to fandom_wank. LOTR BNF name-dropping/stalking/flamewars will commence, everything will get very meta and people will start talking about the Old Skool F_W and the mods will delete all our asses, prompting more cries of "hackerz!" and the JF admins will start going to people's houses and shooting them.

I see no flaws in this plan.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	cesare 2004-10-06 12:11 pm UTC (link)
	You're not so much sticking your neck out as you are thinking out loud in a post that appears on nearly 2,000 people's friends pages. Agreeing with Miss Windy here: if you're not bringing fresh wank or at least a fresh (and would funneh be too much to ask?) point of view on stale wank... this would be better for your own journal. (Reply to this)

	ashenmote 2004-10-06 12:17 pm UTC (link)
	My thoughts? Okay. Which edition of your post is this, currently? Still first? saves (Reply to this)(Thread)

	phosfate 2004-10-06 08:50 pm UTC (link)
	BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	littlest_lurker 2004-10-06 11:41 pm UTC (link)
	Hee! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	bubosquared 2004-10-07 01:53 am UTC (link)
	Bwahahahah! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	msmanna 2004-10-06 01:11 pm UTC (link)
	but isn't this at least if not more wanky as the subject material? Since you ask: no, it isn't. HTH, HAND. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2004-10-06 04:43 pm UTC (link)
	I particularly enjoyed John Howe's comment about what a fetching title the book has. (Reply to this)

	serai 2004-10-06 05:12 pm UTC (link)
	rolls eyes Why am I not surprised that both the title and the cover are guaranteed to prevent anyone not already in the know from buying this thing? Talk about tacky. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	kraken_sleeps 2004-10-06 05:21 pm UTC (link)
	I'd've called it 'Lord of the Cons' or something like that but there you go. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mistressrenet 2004-10-06 05:41 pm UTC (link)
	Oh, that's a good one. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mister_terrific 2004-10-07 05:45 am UTC (link)
	One Con to Screw Them All One Con to Fleece Them One Con to Have A Ball With Sean Astin, then in the darkness... Never mind. :) Mister Terrific Defender of Fair Play (Reply to this)(Parent)

serai
2004-10-07 05:57 am UTC (link)

It might just as well be self-published for all the professional aura it gives off. It looks like a sixth-grader's work, or one of those hysterically weird born-again-ranting books. I half expect to open the thing and see whole blocks of print in CAPITAL LETTERS!!!

JORDAN WOOD is the ANTICHRIST and she/he HAS COME to RUIN FANDOM! Stay True To Tolkien and AVOID THE PLAGUE of WOOD!!!

Sheesh.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistressrenet 2004-10-06 05:42 pm UTC (link)
	For the record, authors generally have very little control over titles and cover art (unless she's using a vanity publisher, which is possible). Having said that, the artwork? Ewww. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	cleolinda 2004-10-06 06:11 pm UTC (link)
	My understanding is that she pretty much is using a vanity publisher, or at least a small publisher, to have more control over the book content. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mistressrenet 2004-10-06 06:19 pm UTC (link)
	Then, yes. Ewww. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kijikun 2004-10-06 08:50 pm UTC (link)
	The art was done by someone well known in Lotr fandom I think, sort of has a favor. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:40 am UTC (link)
	Not well known for fanart, I hope. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	serai 2004-10-07 05:58 am UTC (link)
	For the record, authors generally have very little control over titles and cover art And looking at this thing, I'd say that in some cases, that's a very good thing. (Reply to this)(Parent)

tiki
2004-10-06 07:55 pm UTC (link)

No, making a webpage to give a blow-by-blow account of a fan-feud is wanky.

Now, making a webpage to SELL A SELF-PUBLISHED BOOK that gives a blow-by-blow account of a fan-feud? WANKTACULARLY WANKTASTIC WITH A SIDE OF WANK IN EXTRA WANK SAUCE.

Oh, god, that's hilarious. As if anyone who wasn't involved (and therefore all ready knows the story) is even going to give a book like this a second glance.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	kijikun 2004-10-06 08:52 pm UTC (link)
	You do realize that a ton of people have pre-ordered the book, and that alot of the money is going to those that were cheated? It's not a book about a fan feud. It's a books about lies, cons, broken promises, hobbit channeling and pseude-sucide. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kraken_sleeps 2004-10-06 08:58 pm UTC (link)
	It's going in my PhD. g (Reply to this)(Parent)

tiki
2004-10-06 10:53 pm UTC (link)

You do realize that a ton of people have pre-ordered the book

Well, "a ton of people" were involved, or at least were in the know.

alot of the money is going to those that were cheated?

Um. That's nice?

It's not a book about a fan feud. It's a books about lies, cons, broken promises, hobbit channeling and pseude-sucide.

I don't see how all those things are mutually exclusive with a fan feud.

Not that it isn't an interesting story, and if I saw it as an article in a magazine like Vanity Fair or something, I'd probably read it, but going on about it for 352 and then publishing it yourself? And selling it on a webpage with links to "POTTERY FOR SALE!" and a Lord of the Rings webring? To me that just says "fannish grudge", albeit taken to heights rarely seen.
Sorry-- I realize the author is a friend of yours but it honestly seems to me that if an outsider (that is, a "mundane" who's never heard of these people or even of Fandom_Wank) comes across this webpage it'd just confuse them.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kijikun
2004-10-07 01:13 am UTC (link)

Actaully she's not, I've just watched it unfold from the start.

She does realize (as she says on her lj) that the webpage is kinda confuing and is trying to fix that. But as she admits she isn't very net-savay on those things.

I think what the whole book thing really means is that Abby and Amy's crimes will be in print making it harder for them to do the same scam.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

serai
2004-10-07 06:05 am UTC (link)

Unfortunately, that would only work if the book were designed in such a way as to be taken seriously. I can tell you right now this book will get zero interest from people who would be in a position to call widespread attention to it. No reputable paper or media outlet is going to give space or time to a book with a title and cover like that. It's an utterly classic case of fannish foot-shooting - giving way to the impulse to be "clever" instead of serious. Any chance of this making the slightest waves outside of the fandom itself has basically been squelched by this bad decision.

She'd have better served the book's purpose of being a warning to all by choosing a plain-colored cover with good lettering and design, rather than this cutesy drawing and sick-making pun. (What the hell is it with fans and puns, anyway? Don't people realize how childish punning sounds to people outside fandom, which is like 90% of the population of this planet?)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	kijikun 2004-10-07 06:11 am UTC (link)
	Hell, make the suggestion to her. I'm not overly fond of the book desgin myself. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	serai 2004-10-07 06:19 am UTC (link)
	Oh, it's not a suggestion. I was just commenting back on what you'd said about the purpose of the book. I learned quite some time ago that you can't suggest anything to Turimel that she doesn't already agree with. And trying to give her some real-world criticism, no matter how kindly worded - forget it. (Reply to this)(Parent)

turimel
2004-10-09 10:38 pm UTC (link)

"It's an utterly classic case of fannish foot-shooting - giving way to the impulse to be "clever" instead of serious."

Good gracious, Serai, how can one possibly be serious about a topic in which two former hobbit channelers create a phony charity for the sole purpose of meeting movie stars (while pocketing the money raised), with one pretending to be a Male Cousin of Elijah Wood On The Run From The IRA? No one can take this stuff seriously, it's a gigantic absurd farce. A wanky snarkfest. Or a snarky wankfest if you prefer.

I don't know if all these prognostications are true, that no one outside of F_W that doesn't already know the story will want a copy. At the risk of precipitating mockery, I've sold books on 4 continents now, and considering that it's just now being printed, I think that's an encouraging sign. And I haven't even started hitting up my friends yet, those were actual legitimate customers.

You may well be right, though, I may have screwed up big time by treating this with sarcasm and irreverence. I just don't see this as a story with a plain cover and a somber or just-the-facts tone. To me, that would be more like the "fan crying out in the hostile literary wilderness begging to be taken seriously" approach. Talk about foot shooting--the last thing The Great Mainstream wants to read is a serious book about fandom.

I'm bummed that some people don't like the art, I thought it was really good. It's hard to really see it on line because it's been translated into JPG from a PDF file made on the Adobe Illustrator program. The JPG file is much more coarse than the PDF. Which makes sense given that the PDF version is something like 15 MB and the JPG is more like 1 MB. When I had the printed cover here with the proof, it really looked like it's supposed to look, all the lines were much more precise, more subtlety in the colors, etc.

I guess time will tell. I was going to pose the rhetorical question, "Geez, can you guys be any more discouraging?" but we all know the answer to that. ;)

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:15 am UTC (link)
	Not that it isn't an interesting story I don't know about that. Perhaps it's just overexposure, but I find it all fairly boring. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ashenmote 2004-10-06 08:56 pm UTC (link)
	When I hear fan-feud, I see people tearing each other a new one about the superiority of Boromir/Faramir over Gollum/OneRing. Yeah, I guess it would be pretty wanky to write a book about such things. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	misswindy 2004-10-06 11:17 pm UTC (link)
	So, am I the only one who reads "fandom feud" and imagines the two casts of Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter clapping and shouting "Good answer! Good answer!" in front of a live studio audience while Richard Dawson shouts, "SURVEY SAYS...."? Just me then? OK. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	mister_terrific 2004-10-06 11:59 pm UTC (link)
	"The category is...'Things That Are Pastede On'!" Mister Terrific Defender of Fair Play (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	bubosquared 2004-10-07 01:54 am UTC (link)
	But that covers everything! (I have yet to come across something that cannot be pastede on for hilarious results.) (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ashenmote 2004-10-07 12:04 am UTC (link)
	Hee. Now me, too. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:18 am UTC (link)
	Except for Ashenmote, that is. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:19 am UTC (link)
	&*&^&. This comment ended up in the wrong part of the thread. It was supposed to be a reply to my reply immediately below. which might have made it funny (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	ashenmote 2004-10-07 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	But I was outright able to deduce that there must be a "You are the only one" flying around nearby when your comment hit my inbox. Go me. ^_^ (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:39 pm UTC (link)
	Have I ever mentioned how much I love your Breakfast Club icon? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	*blush* ashenmote 2004-10-08 01:59 am UTC (link)
	No, but I'm very happy to hear. Thanks. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	oysteria 2004-10-07 08:17 am UTC (link)
	You are the only one. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	mistressrenet 2004-10-07 02:27 pm UTC (link)
	Dude, that would rock. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	thecomfychair 2004-10-08 02:43 am UTC (link)
	only if the host was Louis Anderson. Now i would pay to see that. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	ysadri 2004-10-09 02:33 pm UTC (link)
	Yes, the artwork is amazingly cheesy, but I have to admit that's such an utterly bizarre story, I'm not surprised she's chosen to try and recoup some of her expenses by publishing it. Though I'd have tried to get a real publisher. Offtopic = I loved the first few Wild Card books. Though they, like most shared universe series, ended up getting rather weird. But why Jack Braun??? (Reply to this)