Antidote International , Inc Vs Underdogs, Inc., Laura Albert

INTEREST OF AMICUS AUTHORS GUILD, INC.

The Authors Guild respectfully submits that the decision of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York with
regard to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, was not only
inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial, but also will have
negative repercussions extending into the future for many authors.
The right to free speech, and the right to speak and write anonymously
are rights protected by our Constitution, and the district court’s
decision which holds that Laura Albert’s use of pseudonym breached the
Option and Purchase Agreement, is one that will have a chilling effect
upon authors wishing to exercise their right to write anonymously.
Based on the foregoing, the Authors Guild respectfully requests that
this Court reverse its decision on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of
contract.

MB: please put with a link: (Read entire Amicus Brief below)

Even the trial judge was mystified by Antidote’s motives. In his
words, “The mystery to this case, the enigma wrapped inside a
riddle…is why a film company would spend about 3 times what they are
asking for in damages in their own lawyers fees…”

But there is really no mystery. Antidote got just what it wanted: a
renewed license to grab Laura Albert’s intellectual property and her
life story. As they have made clear to the press:

“Mr. Levy Hinte went into this knowing he wouldn’t likely recover all
the money he put into it. We knew Laura Albert doesn’t have deep
pockets,” said Gregory Curtner, the producer’s lawyer. Curtner said
Levy-Hinte would pursue collection actions and try to force Albert to
liquidate her assets.” (New York Post, August 1, 2007)

And, said Levy Hinte himself, “‘Somebody could make a good movie out
of it, if they wanted.’ He went on to say that if Ms. Albert, who
never made a fortune from her literary works, could not afford to pay
the judgment, he might have to consider laying claim to the rights to
her past and future books.” New York Times, June 23, 2007.

INTEREST OF AMICUS AUTHORS GUILD, INC.

The Authors Guild, Inc. founded in 1912, is a national non-profit
association of more than 8,200 professional, published writers of all
genres. The Guild counts historians, biographers, academicians,
journalists and other writers of nonfiction and fiction as members.
The Authors Guild works to promote the rights and professional
interests of authors in various areas, including copyright, freedom of
expression and taxation. In the area of copyright, the Guild has
fought to procure satisfactory domestic and international copyright
protection and to secure fair payment of royalties, license fees and
non-monetary compensation for authors’ work. Guild attorneys annually
help hundreds of authors negotiate and enforce their publishing
contracts.
Authors Guild members earn their livelihoods through their writing.
Their work covers important issues in history, biography, science,
politics, medicine, business and other areas; they are frequent
contributors to the most influential and well-respected publications
in every field.
The Authors Guild is extremely concerned about the implications of the
decision below. The district court’s monetary judgment against Laura
Albert suggests that the terms of literary contracts and motion
picture option agreements signed by authors can be expanded far beyond
their explicit terms and can be the basis for claims of fraud and
breach of contract against authors. The claims in this case are based
on a total misinterpretation of standard clauses in both book
contracts and motion picture purchase agreements.
Laura Albert wrote the book “Sarah” under a pseudonym, a time-honored
literary device and one sanctioned by the United States Copyright Law.
Yet because her real name was not used in the motion picture option
and purchase agreement, Antidote International Films, Inc.
(”Antidote”) brought actions for fraud and breach of contract against
her on the ground that the listed name was not the true “sole author”
of the work. And the district court endorsed those claims by its
judgment below. Antidote in fact received all the necessary rights it
sought in order to prepare a motion picture version of “Sarah.” Yet
because it then asked for and did not receive more than it had
bargained for — namely the life story rights of the author — it
commenced this far-fetched action that threatens the rights of all
authors who sign literary purchase agreements under a pseudonym. For
these reasons the Author’s Guild is submitting this amicus brief.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

In the Nineteenth Century, the works of women authors were frowned
upon in England and elsewhere around the world. The three Bronte
sisters, Emily Bronte, Anne Bronte and Charlotte Bronte initially
wrote their books under the names of Ellis Bell, Acton Bell and Currer
Bell. Charlotte Bronte explained the reasons for this decision:
Averse to personal publicity, we veiled our own names under those of
Currer, Ellis, and Acton Bell; the ambiguous choice being dictated by
a sort of conscientious scruple at assuming Christian names positively
masculine, while we did not like to declare ourselves women, because
– without at that time suspecting that our mode of writing and
thinking was not what is called “feminine” — we had a vague
impression that authoresses are liable to be looked on with prejudice;
we had noticed how critics sometimes use for their chastisement the
weapon of personality, and for their reward, a flattery, which is not
true praise.

Mary Ann Evans wrote her great books (”Middlemarch,” “Daniel Deronda,”
“Silas Marner”) under the name “George Eliot,” largely because female
authors were not considered serious literary figures at the time, for
the reasons stated by Charlotte Bronte. Her companion for over twenty
years, George Henry Lewes, initially negotiated on her behalf with
publishers, claiming that the true author wished to remain anonymous.
If he had, on some occasions, pretended to be the “George Eliot” who
actually wrote the book, but the contracts were signed by the real
author, no publisher could have had the basis for any complaint. The
publisher received the necessary rights and could publish the works.
Exactly the same situation is present here. Antidote received all the
rights it needed to prepare a motion picture. Underdogs, Inc (Albert’s
personal services corporation) was the “owner” of the necessary
rights. It possessed the copyright and motion picture rights which it
could and did convey to the motion picture production company. There
was no breach of any of the terms of the contract. The decision below
should be reversed and the complaint should be dismissed.
ARGUMENT
THERE WAS NO BREACH OF ANY OF THE TERMS
OF THE OPTION AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT

It was Antidote’s theory that defendants had committed a breach of a
number of the clauses of that contract. In particular it claimed that
there was a breach of the “sole author” clause of the option and
purchase agreement signed by Underdogs. That provision reads:
9. Representations and Warranties. Owner hereby represents and warrants that:

(a) JT LeRoy is the sole author of the work and Owner is the sole and
exclusive owner and proprietor throughout the universe of the Work and
any and all Granted Rights granted to Producer herein;

(b) Owner has the full right, power and authority to enter into this
Agreement and grant Producer all the Granted Rights herein provided
for;

(c) The Work is not in the public domain in any country in the world
which provides for a copyright or similar protection;

(d) The Work and the Property is wholly original with Owner and no
incident therein or part thereof is taken from, based upon, or adapted
from any other literary material, dramatic work or motion picture
(other than material in the public domain) and exploitation of the
Granted Rights, the full use of the Work or any part thereof, and
exploitation of the Granted Rights as herein granted will not to best
of Owner’s knowledge in any way violate or infringe upon any copyright
belonging to any Person or constitute a libel or defamation of, or an
invasion of the rights of privacy of or otherwise violate or infringe
upon any other right or rights whatsoever of any Person;

(e) To the best of Owner’s knowledge, there is no outstanding claim or
litigation pending against the title or ownership of the Work and/or
the Property or any part thereof or in the rights therein;

(f) Owner has not assigned or licensed to any other Person or in any
manner encumbered or hypothecated any of the Granted Rights herein
granted to Producer with respect to the Work or the Property nor has
Owner agreed to do so.

(g) Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Work may be used in any
manner and by any and all means, whether now known or unknown, and
either factually or with such fictionalization, portrayal, action,
dialogue, impersonation, simulation and/or imitation or other
modification as Producer, its successors and/or assigns, determine in
Producer’s sole discretion.

Plaintiff asserts that the there was a “false representation and
warranty as to the author and ownership of the novel Sarah.” (Compl.
Par. 117) and the court allowed the jury to consider this argument on
the breach of contract claim.
However there was nothing false in JT LeRoy (Laura Albert) making the
representations cited. There was no “false representation” involved in
“JT LeRoy” saying she was the “sole” author. She was the “sole”
author.
The warranties and representations clause of the contract is
corresponds to the warranties clause of every option and literary
purchase agreement involving motion pictures. It is also typical of
the representation and warranty clause of every book publishing
contract or of any music publishing or recording contract.
The purpose of the clause is to insure that the purchaser (movie
production company, book publisher, record company) has acquired all
the necessary rights to prepare a motion picture, book or record, that
there is no defect in the author’s title and that there is no other
co-author who could convey rights to a competitor. This purpose is
explained in one of the leading treatises on entertainment contracts.
See 1 Entertainment Industry Contracts: Negotiating and Drafting
Guide, “Motion Pictures Contracts,” by Jay Kenoff, Form 3-2, p. 3-44,
(LexisNexis, 2006). Mr. Kenoff explains, in discussing the terms of an
option agreement, similar to those involved here:
In acquiring a literary property, the purchaser must be assured that
it is acquiring all the rights necessary for a picture to be based
upon the literary property and that it is not subjecting itself to any
third party claims. Accordingly, the purchaser wants to receive
adequate assurances that the owner has outright ownership of the
literary property if the owner did not create it, and that the owner
has a valid claim of title from the author or that the literary
property was the original creation of the owner.

Mr. Kenoff explains the same principle in discussion the terms of a
final Literary Purchase Agreement:
The purchaser [of the literary rights] will require various
representations and warranties from the owner concerning the source,
chain of title and ownership of the property. Such representations and
warranties provide some security to the purchaser concerning the
rights being acquired, because the purchaser wants to obtain the
property without potential suits or claims. Id, Form 4-1, p. 4-17

With respect to the “sole” ownership language, Mr. Kenoff has the
following comments:
An essential representation and warranty from the owner is that the
owner is the sole and exclusive proprietor of the property. Without
this representation and warranty, the purchaser may be acquiring a
claim from the real owner or a co-owner or possibly even nothing.

In other words, the purpose of the “sole author” clause is not to
assure the purchaser that the listed name of the author is or is not a
pseudonym or pen name. Rather the purpose is to assure the purchaser
that it has acquired all the necessary rights to be able to make the
film, and no third party can come forward to claim any rights in the
property.
But that latter representation is absolutely true in this case. There
is no doubt that JT LeRoy/Laura Albert is the author of the work.
There is no doubt that she created the work, owns it and is in a
position to convey all the film rights in the work. There is no third
party that can claim any rights in the work that would interfere with
the purchaser’s right to make the film. That is all that the
representation and warranties clause is designed to cover, as noted
above.
If an erroneous name is used to sign a contract but the person
controlling the rights does in fact sign the contract, that person is
bound by its terms. See e.g. In re Excel Stores, Inc., 341 F.2d 961
(2d Cir. 1965)(corporate officer signed contract under erroneous name
of company; company still bound by agreement since error considered
minor). That has been the rule in common law jurisdictions for
centuries. See David v. Williamsburgh City Fire Insurance Co. 38
Sickels 265 (N.Y. 1880):
And DALY, Ch. J., in the Petition of John Snook (2 Hilton, 566), after
a learned and exhaustive examination of the whole subject of names,
said: “There are numerous cases, both in this country and in England,
holding that where a man enters into a contract or does any act in a
particular name, he may be sued by the name that he used, whatever his
true name may be, and generally that wherever a man has done an act in
a particular name, or where he makes a grant, it may always be shown
in support of the validity of the act, that he was known by that name
at or about the time when the act was done, though he may have been
baptized or previously known by a different name. All that the law
looks to is the identity of the individual, and when that is clearly
established the act will be binding upon him and upon others.” Surely
if a mere mark or figures or initials will bind one who uses them in
the execution of a contract or conveyance with intent to be bound, he
will, for the same reasons, be bound if he uses certain letters of a
fictitious name with the same intent. Henry J. David assumed the name
of Marx David, and executed the papers in that name, intending that
they should be effectual to vest title in the plaintiff, and I know of
no rule of law which requires that intent to fail.

If Laura Albert was bound by the contract even if another name was
used (as she was, as plaintiff readily agrees), that must mean that
she necessarily conveyed the rights and made the representations
contained in the contract. But that must mean that she was bound as
the real author to convey all the necessary rights in the contract.
That she did and plaintiff has therefore suffered no wrong since it
obtained what it had bargained for.
To interpret the clause as requiring that only the author’s true name
must appear in a contract or there is some kind of breach is to ignore
the fact that many authors have written under a pseudonym over the
centuries. Aside from the Bronte’s and George Eliot, we have Lewis
Carroll (Charles Dodgson), Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens) George
Orwell (Eric Blair) and many others. The Copyright Law explicitly
allows pseudonymous works to be registered for copyright, 17 U.S.C. §
302(c).
There are many cases which acknowledge the legality and legitimacy of
pen names or pseudonymous names by an author. The Supreme Court upheld
the use of anonymous names in the electoral process in McIntyre v.
Ohio Elections Com’n, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). In describing that case, a
federal court noted the protection afforded anonymous literature in
all its phases.
Then came the Supreme Court’s decision in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections
Com’n, 514 U.S. 334, 115 S.Ct. 1511, 131 L.Ed.2d 426 (1995). In
McIntyre, a pamphleteer challenged a fine imposed by the Ohio
Elections Commission for distributing anonymous leaflets opposing a
proposed school tax. Noting early on in the opinion that there was “no
suggestion that the text of her message was false, misleading or
libelous,” Justice Stevens analyzed the right of a person to remain
anonymous. The court found that historically “anonymous pamphlets,
leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in
the progress of mankind” quoting Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60, 80
S.Ct. 536 at 538, 4 L.Ed.2d 559 (1960)

In re Baxter, 2001 WL 34806203 (W.D. La. December 20, 2001) *9.

In Roddy Eden v. Clemens, 202 Misc. 261, 264, 108 N.Y.S. 597, 600
(Sup. Ct. N.Y. Cty 1952), the Court noted:
It is not an instance of writing under a nom de plume. In such a case,
regardless of the pen name employed by the writer, he is, in truth,
the real author and is not exploiting the ability, talent and
authorship of another, palming it off under the false pretense that it
is his own. In the former instance, it is, however, the true and real
author, but merely employing a pseudonym, which is permissible in the
field of literature and recognized in law. Clemens v. Bedford, Clark &
Co., C.C., 14 F. 728, 729. (emphasis added)

The Clemens case cited involved another author using the name “Mark
Twain” on a book that Samuel Clemens did not write. The Court found:
In other words, no person has the right to hold another out to the
world as the author of literary matter which he never wrote; and the
same rule would undoubtedly apply in favor of a person known to the
public under a nom de plume, because no one has the right, either
expressly or by implication, falsely or untruly to charge another with
the composition or authorship of a literary production which he did
not write. 14 Fed. at 731.

Thus Laura Albert could validly use a pseudonym in connection with the
movie contract so long as the she (or a company she controlled) in
fact conveyed the necessary rights.
Plaintiff also claims that defendants violated Paragraph 8(a) of the
agreement which granted Plaintiff the right to “utilize Owner’s name,
approved likeness, and approved biography in connection with the
Work…and advertising and publicity relating thereto; provided,
however, that Owner shall have the right to approve…any likeness and
biography used in this connection.”
The purpose of the name and likeness provision is to avoid any right
to publicity or right to privacy claims brought by the underlying
author. Without this provision, the author might object to any use of
her name in any advertising or promotion of the work.
Many courts have recognized that a use outside the scope of the
permission granted in a contract not only constitutes breach of
contract, but also gives rise to an action by the licensor for
invasion of privacy or infringement of the right of publicity. See
Dzurenko v. Jordache, Inc., 59 N.Y.2d 788, 464 N.Y.S.2d 730, 451
N.E.2d 477 (1983) (”For a use beyond the granted consent [plaintiff]
has an action under [New York privacy and publicity statute] … and
is not limited to an action sounding in contract”); Leavy v. Cooney,
214 Cal.App.2d 496, 501, 29 Cal.Rptr. 580 (1963) (use of outside
agreement constitutes both breach of contract and tortious invasion of
privacy); Zim v. Western Pub. Co., 573 F.2d 1318, 1327 (5th Cir.1978)
(use of author’s name outside of use permitted in publishing contract
is tortious, interpreting Florida law); Donoghue v. IBC USA
(Publications) Inc., 70 F.3d 206 (1st Cir.1995) (use in advertising
that is not authorized by the license between the parties constitutes
violation of Massachusetts’ privacy/publicity statute); Seifer v. PHE,
Inc., 196 F.Supp.2d 622, 631 (S.D.Ohio 2002) (grant of sub-license was
not authorized by the license and triggered a claim for infringement).
See also Rivell v. Private Health Care Systems, Inc., 520 F.3d 1308
(11th Cir. 2008)(use of doctors’ names to advertise health care
systems constitutes misappropriation of identity).
Under these circumstances, Antidote suffered no injury or damages. To
the extent it claims that the corporate veil of Underdogs should be
pierced or the contract reformed to include these obligations imposed
on the author, there is nothing in the record to indicate that it
would not have had such the right to use either the pseudonym or the
real name of the author in any promotion or advertising of the final
film. See e.g., Zim v. Western Publishing, Inc. supra, 573 F.2d at
1327: “Western’s right under the contract to publish the book in these
circumstances operates as an authorization sufficient to privilege
Western’s use of Zim’s name as a matter of tort law as well.”
CONCLUSION
The Authors Guild respectfully submits that the decision of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York with
regard to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, was not only
inconsistent with the evidence presented at trial, but also will have
negative repercussions extending into the future for many authors. The
right to free speech, and the right to speak and write anonymously are
rights protected by our Constitution, and the district court’s
decision which holds that Laura Albert’s use of pseudonym breached the
Option and Purchase Agreement, is one that will have a chilling effect
upon authors wishing to exercise their right to write anonymously.
Based on the foregoing, the Authors Guild respectfully requests that
this Court reverse its decision on Plaintiff’s claim for breach of
contract.

Dated: New York, New York
August 13, 2008

Respectfully submitted,

NESENOFF & MILTENBERG, LLP

By: __________________________
Phillip Byler, Esq.
363 7th Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10001-3904
Counsel for The Authors Guild, Inc.
I, Phillip Byler, certify that I have scanned for viruses the PDF
version of the attached document that was submitted in this case as an
email attachment to 1 <briefs@ca2.uscourts.gov>, and
<civilcases@ca2.uscourts.gov> and that no viruses were detected.
Please print the name and the version of the anti-virus detector that
you used Trend Micro ver. 8.0________________________________________
If you know, please print the version of the revision and/or the
anti-virus signature files
________________________________________________

(Your Signature) _______/s/ Phillip Byler__________
Phillip Byler, Esq.

Date: 08/13/2008__________

Join the Authors Guild
https://www.authorsguild.org/join.html

Artist: Emerson, Lake & Palmer Album: Works Vol. 1 Track: Hallowed Be Thy Name

[NOTE: As with my previous post, the song accompanying this has nothing to do with it beyond a thematically suitable lyrical snippet. But it is, luckily, overwrought, silly and fun.]

A year or two ago, there was a sort of mid-level scandal in the publishing world when, at around the same time, it was revealed that James Frey, the author of A Million Little Pieces, had palmed off as a factual memoir what was, in reality, an almost total fabrication, and that J.T. LeRoy, the author of Sarah and The Heart Is Deceitful above All Things, was not, in fact, the bizarre, very young, camera-shy homosexual man that was presented to the public, but instead a woman in her thirties named Laura Albert.

I’d read A Million Little Pieces a year or so before it was exposed as fiction – no; “fiction” does it an undeserved credit – before it was exposed as a load of horsefeathers, and for my own part, recognized it before I was halfway through as the tissue of feeble, self-glorifying lies it could not have been other than. I’d also read Sarah several years earlier, and although I certainly considered Mr. LeRoy a very odd character, I never saw any meaningful reason to doubt his existence, or even give it any thought. It wasn’t an issue. Sarah remains one of the four or five greatest American novels of the past ten years, and whether it was written by J.T. LeRoy, Laura Albert, or a monkey hitting random keys on a typewriter, it’s a flat-outmasterpiece.

George Eliot wasn’t really a man. The Ramones weren’t really brothers. Dr. Seuss did not, in reality, hold a valid medical license. You may even be shocked to learn that my name isn’t actually zarpex. But for
some reason, J.T. LeRoy is called a hoax. Authorial identity is one of the crutches available to the aesthetically crippled. Few people, it pains me to say, possess the faculties even to understand what they
like or dislike. The majority would wince at a glass of wine poured from a bottle labeled “Gallo” and rhapsodize over the same wine poured from a bottle labeled “Chateau Lafite.” If Toni Morrison were to be
revealed in tomorrow’s newspapers as a wealthy Caucasian, her writing would suddenly be recognized as the facile twaddle it has always been, and its newly identified creator would be hanged from the nearest tree
by the 1993 Nobel Prize for literature.

If anything, the invention of J.T. LeRoy should be regarded as a creative accomplishment unto itself, stranger and more complex than Ziggy Stardust (which, for all its endurance, was really little more than a pseudonym), possessing both an absurdity and a plausibility that stands toe-to-toe with Borat. And is it not possible that Laura Albert could not have written her books without creating an alternate character to speak through? Wagner had to dress in period costume to compose; Brian Wilson, whose feet, as far as I know, have yet to touch a surfboard, compensated by resting them in a box of sand when he sat
at the piano to write.

A misfortune of timing lumped an important work of art together with a piece of crude literary onanism, and our culture is the weaker for it. Do yourself a favor if you haven’t already, and read Sarah. The IAU stripped Pluto of its status as a planet, but you know what? It’s still out there.

I was so glad to see you mentioned in Leah Garchik yesterday. And the French aren’t the only ones who get it. I always admired your work, and when the “revelation” occurred I laughed out loud, thrilled that this boy-wonder was actually someone more fascinating to me; an artist closer to my age who struggled to achieve her success. (BTW: Pierre Louys performed a similar feat about 100 years earlier, in France of course. Maybe that’s why they are so receptive. And he, too, was received over there more as a literary celebrity… not a leper)

I wanted to write you ever since you were introduced to the world. I think you handled the events of the JT phenomenon with real finesse. It was obvious the perception of others formed this mass illusion, and you just rolled with it.

I think the JT myth offended so many here in America because he was like a mirror held up revealing their own false pretenses to why they were fans. I believe the majority of these critics were originally just hanger-on types, intrigued by the boy hustler, and the revelation called them out on it. They were suddenly faced with the question “why do you like the work?” after having spent months or years talking of JT LeRoy. They felt phony because the were actually dilettantes.

So while most of these type of fans were more interested in going to readings of JT’s work by celebrities (JT not even present), I was intrigued by the massive amount of published work JT was getting in magazines (no one speaks of this!). When I happened to notice yet another story/interview/etc for the third straight month, it became a pastime of mine to go to the newsstand religiously to look for the next article by JT LeRoy. It was phenomenal, fourteen months straight I found his/your work (before my leisure time was rudely interrupted by an eviction I had to fight), and there may have been more. Once I was re-settled, the story broke, and it was the end of an era…

Personally, I was looking forward to you receiving your much deserved success. I was saddened at the way you were crucified (Where the fuck were all the fans of your WORK?).

So what I wanted to say to you most, and this is no exaggeration, I consider you the greatest living writer. I don’t know if I have any supporters on this, those most qualified to judge such a thing would do so on your written work alone (and you may have tough competition from a few stuffy academic Nobel Prize winners). But I have my own method of measuring this. I would also take into account you as an artist and a person. In these areas you would far surpass all others. Yes, some of the very same qualities many of your turn-coat fans nullified you for, I recognize as virtues. I see true genius personified.

I was in desperate need of a new source of artistic inspiration when you came along. I’ve clung to poor Henry Miller for way too long. The eighty year gap would sometimes cast doubt (Is he still relevant? Would he make it today?). But you demonstrated a real tenacity for carving out a place in today’s world.

I can’t believe anybody had the nerve to criticize you. Especially in these insipid times when people exist like a large herd of cattle. And they don’t even have the decency to applaud when someone levitates above them and does a minuet on a cloud.

You, Ms. Albert, motivate me to continue my own work (screenwriting — I don’t do novels), and I look forward to seeing more of yours in the future.

-Joe Braden

There was a time when we were at it like bunnies. The “modern rock” station played Portishead nonstop. It was the time of roommates and thin walls, and radios turned up to mask. And Portishead were more to mood than the Sundays (too cute) or My Bloody Valentine (too noisy) or Blur (charming beat and accents become annoying during sex, like someone playing with your nipple post orgasm). Portishead were a good indicator that I was knocked up. Suddenly I could not bear that repeating dunda-dah dun-dun. Morning sickness and Portishead were one. Trying to quickly twist the radio knob away from the sound was like trying to scratch an itch while hang gliding. My arm was stretched out as if in petition, my fingers grazing the globular button, when something came shooting out of me, an ooze of warm spittle that bubbled over my swollen belly as the song played on. Now they are back and my son is a 10-year-old drummer. Long may they both play on. http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=562490&hp

JT LeRoy/Laura Albert is, she says, the toast of Paree. “The people of
Paris understood! I wrote FICTION. Fake memoir – no. I wrote Fiction
and PUBLISHED it ALL under the label FICTION. Even Spider Man has a
MySpace page. … I have found so much acceptance here in S.F., but in
Paris – they celebrated me!”

Albert was brought to France by the European public television station
Arte, and was celebrated on TV, in Technikart magazine and at parties.
She spent some time with designer Christian Lacroix, who she says
admired her literary work and offered her one of his dresses. “I am
viewed as an artist that broke new ground. … I did surprise with art
and THAT alone is to be celebrated and encouraged! Not through the
puritanical burn-the-witch lenses of an American need to have a ready
villain.
http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/garchik/

This may be hard to understand, but JT LeRoy was created by the author, Laura Albert, as a part of her. JT LeRoy was someone she identified with even before she/he ever wrote. Albert’s identity fractured early on in her life in order to cope with her own childhood abuse and trauma. This is one way that some people process their trauma.

The things that people responded to in the JT LeRoy books are real, not literally real events (since they have always been works of fiction), but very real expressions, interpretations and reactions to life. These were things that Laura Albert obviously understood deeply.

Also, I am not surprised or angry at all by anyone writing under a different name or presenting themselves in a deliberate way. I think there is too much precedence of this to be controversial.

Please read the Paris Review interview and the Art on Paper article to get a better sense of what happened:

http://www.jtleroy.com/images/TPR178_JTLeroy.pdf

http://www.artonpaper.com/bi/v12n01/review-identity-theft.php

J. Siana:
She lied to a lot of people about a lot of things that I know about and that I don’t care to share on this blog.

She used people for money. Not fond of that behavior. I don’t care if the books are true or not. I know it’s art but I don’t like people who knowingly try to fool other people…to find fame or to benefit financially from it.

J. Lim:
In your reply to my comment, it doesn’t seem like you took into consideration the things I wrote. If you are going to publicly make serious claims about someone I think you should state exactly why, then if someone challenges the things you claim are the basis for your hatred, then I think you should address that. As it stands, everything you’ve written about Laura Albert is, like I said, reactionary, an oversimplification of the situation. When you express your morals as they relate to Laura Albert, you make no room for gray.

You are not open to hearing that her motives were different than you believe. You still believe she used AIDS to market her books, but that is not true, yet you use it as material to hate her. You stated in your blog that Albert “played on sympathies of others”, describing her as a predator with motives of money and fame, as if her books were not an expression of something that she experienced intimately, but they were.

Also, you obviously do care if “the books are true or not” because in your blog you spend a lot of time trying to prove that JT LeRoy was not a first hand authority on pain and struggle even though she did write from deep experience. You site this as one reason why her work is of no value. Like I said before, what Albert describes is not literal, it is an interpretation and expression. The way that Laura Albert communicated with her readers was completely real and sincere; it just came in a different package.

J. Siana:
I actually don’t hate anyone and I definitely don’t spend A LOT of time trying to get people to change their opinions. I have more important things to deal with.

If you will notice this post was written a long time ago and it’s just my opinion. I don’t care if people agree with me or not. It’s just the way I feel.

J. Lim:
You may not actively “hate” her, but in my opinion, you expressed hatred (intense revulsion and distaste) towards what Laura Albert did and what she stands for, in your mind. I never said you “spend a lot of time trying to get people to change their opinions”. I DO think you try to “prove” or show, for yourself and others (since the blog is read by other people), that you are justified in your opinions. I think it’s fair to say that you based your opinions in what you thought were the “facts” and that is why I told you the facts that I knew to be different from the things you described on your blog.

Also, it was not just one “post” it was a series of posts that spanned over the course of a few days.

How long ago you posted it doesn’t matter. You still stand by your opinion, so it can still be relevant to discuss.

Also, it is not “just the way [you] feel.” It has an impact on how other people think and act. This impact is evident in the comments on your blog, as well as in another person’s blog who directly references your posts as the source for her identical opinion about Albert.

I’d read A Million Little Pieces a year or so before it was exposed as fiction – no; “fiction” does it an undeserved credit – before it was exposed as a load of horsefeathers, and for my own part, recognized it before I was halfway through as the tissue of feeble, self-glorifying lies it could not have been other than. I’d also read Sarah several years earlier, and although I certainly considered Mr. LeRoy a very odd character, I never saw any meaningful reason to doubt his existence, or even give it any thought. It wasn’t an issue. Sarah remains one of the four or five greatest American novels of the past ten years, and whether it was written by J.T. LeRoy, Laura Albert, or a monkey hitting random keys on a typewriter, it’s a flat-out masterpiece.

George Eliot wasn’t really a man. The Ramones weren’t really brothers. Dr. Seuss did not, in reality, hold a valid medical license. You may even be shocked to learn that my name isn’t actually zarpex. But for some reason, J.T. LeRoy is called a hoax. Authorial identity is one of the crutches available to the aesthetically crippled. Few people, it pains me to say, possess the faculties even to understand what they like or dislike. The majority would wince at a glass of wine poured from a bottle labeled “Gallo” and rhapsodize over the same wine poured from a bottle labeled “Chateau Lafite.” If Toni Morrison were to be revealed in tomorrow’s newspapers as a wealthy Caucasian, her writing would suddenly be recognized as the facile twaddle it has always been, and its newly identified creator would be hanged from the nearest tree by the 1993 Nobel Prize for literature.

If anything, the invention of J.T. LeRoy should be regarded as a creative accomplishment unto itself, stranger and more complex than Ziggy Stardust (which, for all its endurance, was really little more than a pseudonym), possessing both an absurdity and a plausibility that stands toe-to-toe with Borat. And is it not possible that Laura Albert could not have written her books without creating an alternate character to speak through? Wagner had to dress in period costume to compose; Brian Wilson, whose feet, as far as I know, have yet to touch a surfboard, compensated by resting them in a box of sand when he sat at the piano to write.

A misfortune of timing lumped an important work of art together with a piece of crude literary onanism, and our culture is the weaker for it. Do yourself a favor if you haven’t already, and read Sarah.

The IAU stripped Pluto of its status as a planet, but you know what? It’s still out there.

http://mog.com/zarpex/blog_post/143832

“Something about ‘Mark Twain’ has also attracted pyschobiographical analysis the way deep water attracts a dowsing rod. Justin Kaplan has pointed out that twinship was one of Twain’s favorite subjects, and proposed that Sam took refuge in the ‘Mark Twain’ persona as a conduit to literary independence — it helped free him from his temptations toward bourgeois respectability and blandness — and, as bereavements piled up in his life, as a means of protecting his sanity.”
– Ron Powers, Mark Twain: A Life

I can’t figure out how this works. Lee Siegel, an Ivy League-educated critic who has written for the New Yorker, the New York Times and the New Republic, was caught impersonating an enthusiastic Lee Siegel fan on the New Republic website. His punishment? He was temporarily suspended from the New Republic and mocked on a few blogs, but has otherwise returned to respectability. His latest book got a generous review from Janet Maslin last week in the New York Times.

James Frey wrote a “memoir” about his addiction recovery, A Million Little Pieces, which earned several million little dollars, and then it turned out that he had sold a fictionalized story as truth. Two years later, he has returned to respectability, and his new book was signed by Harper Collins, in a very, very good deal, for publication this summer.

Both of these writers lied to their readers, and so did Laura Albert when she created a persona called J. T. LeRoy to publish a novel called Sarah and a book of stories called The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things. But when the truth came out in 2005 that J. T. LeRoy was not a 25 year old man but a 40 year old woman, the author faced a barrage of anger and criticism that seemed to me disproportionate to the crime. Siegel and Frey also faced similar barrages, of course, but J. T. LeRoy had always been a fiction writer while Siegel and Frey billed themselves as non-fiction writers. The idea that a fiction writer cannot employ a pseudonymous identity without facing legal nightmares should concern anybody who cares about literature.

I’ve also noticed that criticism of Laura Albert tends to take on a strangely emotional and personal pitch. I read many articles at the time of the exposure and had several conversations with literary-minded friends about it and was constantly surprised to find that so many people hoped or believed that J. T. LeRoy/Laura Albert was now forever destroyed. Destroyed? A fiction writer? What’s that about?

And yet there is an overriding belief within the publishing community that Laura Albert should be treated as a pariah, despite the fact that she wrote books many of them once cared about. As the review quotes on the paperback copies of Sarah and The Heart is Decietful Above All Things reveal, many publications including the San Francisco Chronicle, the Los Angeles Times, Publisher’s Weekly, Kirkus Reviews, Bookforum, the New York Times Book Review and the Village Voice gave these books positive reviews when they were published.

But here’s the strange thing about the J. T. LeRoy scandal: the character was never believable from the beginning. I knew J. T. LeRoy was a fake persona from day one, and so did many others. How many people do you know with names like “Jeremiah Terminator LeRoy”? How many young writers do you know who don’t want to be photographed? (Answer: zero.)

I recognized much of the persona of “J. T. LeRoy” as loosely inspired by Warhol Factory denizen drag queen Candy Darling (real name: James Francis Slattery), a fabulously trashy and tragic 60’s transvestite who has been immortalized in not one but two great Lou Reed songs, “Candy Says” and “Walk on the Wild Side”. Because I know my Andy Warhol and I know my Velvet Underground, I always sensed that “J. T. LeRoy” was some kind of updated homage to Warhol/Factory subculture, and I also figured the name “Jeremiah” was inspired by Candy Darling’s best friend Jeremiah Newton (I also figured that whoever was creating this J. T. LeRoy character must be a big fan of the 1996 film I Shot Andy Warhol, in which Jeremiah Newton and Candy Darling are two of the main characters, and that this person might have seen the film one too many times.)

But you don’t have to be into Andy Warhol to appreciate the wider literary tradition of fake identities. How easily we forget that Bob Dylan tried very hard to make people believe he was a drifting hobo from the prairies until journalists exposed a well-educated Jewish kid from Minnesota named Robert Zimmerman. George Eliot, George Sand, the Bronte sisters and Jane Austen all used pseudonyms, and in all cases their careers would not have been possible without the use of pseudonyms. Certainly these facts are Literature 101.

So why the utter outrage? Why can Lee Siegel and James Frey be published again if Laura Albert cannot? Lee Siegel never intended for his deception to be exposed; his IP address betrayed him (and it’s no wonder that he’s now writing books about the evils of internet culture). James Frey also intended to keep his deceptions secret, and I think this points to a more insidious kind of dishonesty. So why are they allowed back in, and Laura Albert not?

I have some theories. I think that a large percentage of the publishing community always hated this trashy and over-hyped underground upstart, and many of those who never liked J. T. LeRoy are now engaging in a bit of triumphalism in declaring Laura Albert an utter outcast.

There may be some ageism involved in the outrage directed at the woman who shaved 15 years off her lifespan without a care in the world. Also, comically, there’s a mistaken impression that Laura Albert “got rich” by being J. T. LeRoy (anybody who believes this must think that underground fiction sells a whole lot better than it does), and this adds to the backlash.

In fact, speaking of money, Laura Albert lost a very harsh legal judgement last year to a film production company, and is now facing the very common American problem known as financial ruin. And this probably adds to her current unpopularity; everybody hates a loser.

I’ve argued elsewhere that her legal team badly bungled the defense at this trial, and I hope Laura will earn an appeal (she and her representatives are trying). I spoke to Laura on the phone last week, and found myself interacting with a warm and vulnerable person, a down-to-earth mother of a ten year old boy, an intellectual whose favorite recent book is Foreskin’s Lament by Shalom Auslander and who cites Mary Gaitskill, James Joyce and Flannery O’Connor as influences.

Here’s what I told her: Laura, please find a way to get back in the game. You are a writer, and a writer must write. Don’t let the bastards get you down.

Can Laura Albert ever be forgiven? I daresay she’s not the only fiction writer who ever told a lie. That’s why they call them fiction writers.

http://www.litkicks.com/LauraAlbertForgiven/

February 5, 2008

By Levi Asher
It’s depressing to learn that the young author of A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier is facing accusations of factual inaccuracy. If true, it follows the dreary precedent set by James Frey, and A Million Little Pieces.

What’s next? Are we going to find out that Elizabeth Gilbert loved first, and ate and prayed later? Readers are getting sick of it, but it’s hard to tell whether our shared outrage is channelling into useful new standards for writers and publishers, or rather if the world of publishing isn’t simply working itself up into such a dizzy froth of contradictory principles that nobody knows who or what to believe anymore.

The situation reached a height of unreality last winter when the utterly trustworthy Ian McEwan was forced to explain that his hospital scenes in Atonement, which recalled the work of nurse/novelist Lucilla Andrews, were a case of homage rather than theft.

And the situation reached a height of banality in March 2007 when John Banville published a “pseudonymous” mystery novel but the book ended up referred to as Christine Falls by Benjamin Black by John Banville (or as Christine Falls by Benjamin Black and John Banville, or any of several other variations). Publishing a mystery novel under a pen name alongside your real name is about as exciting as going to the prom with your mother.

A gullible and attention-scattered book-journalism community must take some of the blame for the lack of clarity regarding truth in authorship. Earlier in this decade, a fresh-faced young woman named Samantha Knoop began appearing at parties or interviews in a big hat, blonde wig and dark glasses playing the writer JT LeRoy. This was obviously a person “in character”, especially since JT LeRoy was supposed to be a male drug addict and drag queen bearing scars of lifelong abuse, and this was a healthy young woman in a hat and wig and glasses. And yet top publications like the New York Times ran credulous interviews with this “JT LeRoy”, and when the ruse fell apart journalists claimed to have been expertly conned.

Journalists and publishers must adopt higher standards, but most of all it’s the writers who suffer when these scandals break, and it’s the writers who must learn from past mistakes. I’d like to propose a simple set of realistic standards that all writers should adopt to avoid authorship scandals in the future. Here are the eight things every writer should remember:

1. Do not use the word “memoir” unless you mean it.

2. If you’re not sure whether what you’re writing is a memoir or not, guess what? It’s a novel.

3. No more than half a page of plagiarism per book.

4. Don’t make up exact dates that you can’t remember. Instead, be general: “The most important day of my life was the day of my son’s birth, in the summer of 2005 …”

5. Just say no to sending a friend out in public with a wig as you.

6. If you’re in a flame war and you’re about to go sock puppet, take a 10-minute break and go to a coffee shop without a wi-fi facility. Maybe the walk will cool you down.

7. Go ahead and make up dialogue. Everybody except Tom Wolfe does.

8. Pick a name. “Benjamin Black is John Banville” is just not a good look.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/02/how_to_avoid_author_scandals.html