Hello Friends.
Comedian Louis C.K. has this show
called Louie, which opens with a cover of that song "Brother
Louie." The one that goes, "Louie Louie Louie Lou-eeee!
Louie Louie Louie Lou-ayyye! Louie Louie Louie Lou-eeee! Louie, baby,
you're gonna cry." This past Sunday at the Emmy Awards, the show
and its star took home some hardware for their second season. I was
glad as that season was really good, but there's been something
bugging me about the third season which wraps up this week. Since the
departure of the character Pamela at the close of the season two,
Louie has seen a string of really crazy ladies. Over the course of a
dozen episodes, three women offer to blow him, Melissa Leo cracks his
head against the windshield of her car, Parker Posey takes him on a
deranged all-night date after getting kicked out of a bar, Chloe
Sevigny attempts to reunite him with Posey and is so excited at the
idea that she masturbates openly in a coffee shop, Maria Bamford
gives him crabs, Nancy Shayne has her vagina removed, and Sarah
Silverman contemplates "cutting her tits off." Maybe this
isn't misogyny exactly, speaks more to Louie's bad luck or the
strange people he encounters, but it isn't as if the male characters
on the show are alternately oversexed or castrated.
That's a long digression to explain
that, in gathering this evidence, I had a strong article to
pitch. Louie earns amazing accolades from columnists and critics. The
auteur style of of production (he writes, directs and edits every
episode himself) and his strange vignette-style episodes make his the
cool show to watch. Despite scouring the internet for other articles
about his treatment of women this year, I found nothing. I thought,
perhaps, that my fresh perspective might stimulate discussion, or at
least readers, on a entertainment/culture website. I picked Salon.com
because it's a site I visit often, I like their columnists generally,
and they accept unsolicited submissions for article ideas, and
they often pay. I pitched the piece on a Thursday, citing the above
examples and using something like, "Louie's Girl Trouble"
as my working title. I received no response from anyone at Salon and
still haven't, but the following Wednesday they published this
article.
I can't prove that they stole my idea,
but doesn't it seem like it? It's very possible that someone else
watching the same season of television I did would arrive at the
same conclusions, but it's a pretty big coincidence that Salon would
get pitched the same idea and not think to at least write a two line
response to me like, "Oh thanks, but someone's contacted us with
a similar concept." I hate the idea that some editor took my
idea, considered it, then promptly outsourced it to a better writer.
If my grapes are especially sour, it's because one, this article has
been reblogged from several sources (including my blog, I guess) and
two, I swear this has happened before.
Dream: Credit where it's due.
Goal: Achievable, I hope. Can any
writers speak to whether this is common practice? It's curious how a
lot of these websites work. Huffington Post, for instance, has
enormous readership and accepts unsolicited submissions. They don't
pay a dime, but one supposes the exposure an article could
potentially get would be a fair trade. But the way they accept
submissions seems intentionally slick. To pitch to them, you log into
their site, click a link, and write your idea in a box and click
send. At no time do you get the email address of the editor you're
allegedly sending to, nor do you have the option to email it back to
yourself. Your idea, once it's sent, is zapped into the ether of the
internet and unless you're particularly computer savvy, there's no
record of what you wrote them. Ostensibly, they could steal your idea
and you'd have no way to prove they did.
Plan: Rise up, move on.
I have no plans beyond this blog to
confront the folks at Salon. I have no leg to stand on, after all,
nothing to prove that the writer of the published article didn't come
to the same conclusions I did and simply get there first, or have
stronger prose. Besides, there's nothing they can do to
course-correct. Publish my article after hers? Why?
Similarly, I can't fight the folks at a
storytelling website I have to be vague about as they could still pay
me for future contributions. Every week they put out a call looking
for stories concerning a particular theme. The examples I use here
are changed to save my ass in case they read this, but trust that the
coincidences were the same level of plausibility. So one week, they
asked something like, "Do you have a funny story about seeing
someone out of context? Like running into a teacher outside of
school?" And I sent them a story about bonding with a teacher
outside of school after we both got caught in a rainstorm together.
They rejected the story but the following week sent out a call
asking, "Have you ever been caught in the rain with someone?
What did you learn?" It seemed really weird to me that they
rejected my idea but seemed to steal the concept. Undaunted, I
wrote, "Wow, what a coincidence! I'd like to pitch this story
about being caught in the rain with my French teacher one more time!"
but because I knew they had rejected the story earlier, I sent along
a second story about being caught in the rain during a roadtrip with
a friend. They rejected those, but the following week sent out
another mass email saying, "This week, we want stories about
roadtrips!" Again, these examples are fake, but the eerie
coincidences are the same. And like Salon, I can't accuse them of
anything because I can't prove that anything actually happened.
I'm not alone here, and there are
terrible examples of this kind of behaviour in writing and many other
industries. Dr. Jon knows of a PhD student whose supervisor began
taking credit for his thesis, submitting it to journals and
conferences all over the world as his own work. I know of an actress
who set up an audition for what she thought was an indie drama. The
audition turned out to be in a deserted office building on a Saturday
and when she arrived she was given a flimsy bra to "change into
real quick" for an on-camera test. My friend bolted and took a
few other girls with her, but there are far worse stories where that
theme is concerned. Another friend told jokes at a stand-up night
featuring a more prominent comedian. Two months later he saw that
comedian doing his jokes on television.
Plagiarism seems to be a fact of life,
in one form or another (don't steal this, Wente), but I guess the
onus is on the originator to protect his or her own work. Naivete
only serves you well in the bedroom. For me, it boils down to being
assertive and simply demanding fair and equitable treatment for my
work, which is something the women's movement, for example, fights for every day. Their cause
deserves more help than my own, but maybe don't ask Brother Louie, or
you're gonna cry.
No comments:
Post a Comment