Archive for the ‘Robert Fletcher’ Category

BREAKING NEWS: Florida AG Set to Begin Trial Against Strategic Book Publishing et al

In Attorney General, Florida, Randi Shapiro, Robert Fletcher, Strategic Book Group, Strategic Book Publishing, strategic book publishing and rights agency on June 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm

Strategic Book Publishing: Florida AG Set to Begin Trial

Randi Shapiro, Financial Investigator, Consumer Protection Bureau, Office of the Florida Attorney General has confirmed to The Write Agenda that the case against Strategic Book Group, Robert Fletcher et al is “on the docket for [a] three month time period .”  It is not expected to run through the month of September. The exact date is unknown at this time. However, it is expected t0 go to trial anytime after July 1st, 2013. Most likely  it will not be until after July 4th.

Stay tuned.

Strategic Book Publishing: Florida AG Set to Begin Trial?

In Attorney General, Florida, lawsuit, lawsuits, Legal Issues, Publisher, Publishers, Publishing, Robert Fletcher, Scams, Self-Publish, Self-Published, Self-Publishing, Strategic Book Publishing, strategic book publishing and rights agency, The Write Agenda, Untraditional Publishing, Vanity, Writer, Writers on May 24, 2013 at 12:02 pm

An anonymous source has indicated to TWA that the Florida Attorney General may begin a trial against Publisher Robert Fletcher and his publishing entities. The source stated that the trial could begin in July and run through September.

Stay tuned.

Strategic Book Group Author, Mike Saxton, Replies to Ann “A.C.” Crispin’s BEA Comments

In A.C., A.C. Crispin, Absolute Write, Accountability, Amazon, Amazon Rankings, Amazon Sales Rankings, Ann Crispin, Author, Authors, Credibility, Crispin, Law Suits, Mike Saxton, Professionalism, Propaganda, Publishers, Publishing, Reputation, Reputation Management, Robert Fletcher, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association, Self-Publishing, SFWA, Strategic Book Group, Victoria Strauss on June 13, 2011 at 9:07 pm

[Note to readers: We recently shared with our readers some more negative commentary from Ann “A.C.” Crispin (Click here: Ann “A.C.” Crispin’s 2011 BEA Observations: Industry “Weinerdog” Still Struggles with Truth & Deceit ) We are pleased to have received this letter from Strategic Book Group Author, Mike Saxton which addresses Ann Crispin‘s negativity towards Strategic Book Group and its authors. Victoria Strauss has also made her own comments regarding Strategic’s presence at BEA 2011. For the record, Ann Crispin and others, including Victoria Strauss, were defendants in a lawsuit initiated by Strategic Book Group. Ironically, Ann Crispin‘s latest work,  Pirates of the Caribbean: The Price of Freedom, has a lifetime Amazon Ranking of 3,709,949. Its worst rank was 10,051,407. Comparatively, Strategic’s Mike Saxton’s work, 7 Scorpions: Rebellion, has a lifetime Amazon Ranking of 65,159. Its worst rank was 174,828. Now you know why Ann Crispin is a “Weinerdog.” (Saxton has also out performed Victoria Strauss‘ last publishing effort.) Good for you you Mike. You have put this all into it’s right perspective by demonstrating how to measure success as an author. Your long-term vision certainly competes with the narrowly-focused view of Ann “A.C.” Crispin (Click here) who appears to think that benchmarking long lines for her autograph has some kind of merit to it. For more information on Amazon Sales Rankings, click here. ] When reading Ann “A.C.” Crispin‘s blog postings, even historically, notice her use of “Me,” “Mine,” “My” and “I.”

TO: The Write Agenda

In re: Ann “A.C.” Crispin’s BEA Comments

The question was posed to me recently how I did at the Book Expo of America. Not a surprise, I heard that question a lot. This time it was different however. There was an underlying intention. Upon further probing, I discovered there were serious misnomers about those of us who attended the BEA with Strategic Book Group, who is my publisher. I would like to set a few things straight, from my point of view.

I knew when I attended the BEA that I am an unknown author. The purpose of going was not to have lines out the door to see me. That’s unrealistic. There were many authors there, both known and unknown. I went there to network and to enjoy being in New York City. This is but a piece of the marketing puzzle to become known. I was successful in both. I was not there to pick up an agent. I was not there to shop for a new publisher. I have a publisher. They’ve treated me extremely well, despite rumors to the contrary.

As far as what I was able to accomplish, well, here it is. I gained the interest of some of the big bloggers out there. Book bloggers have become a force to be reckoned with so that was a hope of mine. I connected with several High School librarians who were also interested in my writing. That’s good, because locally, I have donated copies to High School libraries including the New Haven Academy and I have received excellent feedback. There were others, but I did not see their nametags. On top of it, two people from a film company Los Angeles stopped by the table not once, but twice. They left with a signed copy of my book as well as my card. Maybe they were only interested in who my cover designer was, who knows? The reality is, it’s only been a couple of weeks since the event ended and it is a pipe dream to believe that there would be some crazy deal with anyone worked out in such a short amount of time. Matter of fact, the reviewers probably haven’t even had a chance to open the book yet!

The point is, my goal was the realistic one of making connections. Goal met. Period. During my time at the signing table. I was quite busy, as were others around me. Did someone walk up to me and hand me a million dollars? No. If someone had, I would have been suspicious.

I was also asked why I went with my current publisher. If people don’t wish to give my writing a chance because of who publishes it, feel free to pass me by. I won’t enter into a philosophical debate. I have no regrets about going with Strategic. I am really not out to shove my writing into the faces of people who just aren’t interested. I’d rather have 100 people who love it than have a million people who hate it and feel as though they got ripped off.

I can’t speak for the experience of others but anyone entering new into this field is going to be doing a heavy amount of the marketing of their book, no matter who their publisher is. I knew that coming in. I researched the publishing industry for six months prior to going with Strategic. It was the route for me. I am not some hapless victim who didn’t know what I was doing. If that’s a problem, again, feel free to pass me by. When I pick out what I am going to read, I do it based on the merit of the individual volume. I love the “look inside” feature on Amazon and many authors (including me) post samples on their websites. Scope it out. If you don’t like what you see, keep it moving, no regrets.


Mike Saxton

Strategic Book Group Author

7 Scorpions: Rebellion

QUERY: Does Author James D. Macdonald Have a Criminal History?

In A.C., A.C. Crispin, Absolute Write, Accountability, American Book Publishing, Ann Crispin, Authors, Credibility, Crispin, Investigations, James D. MacDonald, Law Suits, Making Light, Money should flow toward the author, Propaganda, Publishers, Publishing, Reputation, Reputation Management, Robert Fletcher, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association, SFWA, Strategic Book Group, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Victoria Strauss, Writer Beware, Yog's Law on May 8, 2011 at 12:34 am

“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”

In a May 6, 2011 post on the Making Light site, James D. Macdonald re-posted an email, from 2007, which was attributed to Strategic Book Group’s President, Robert Fletcher. Without getting into the innuendo (you can read it for yourself here), the implication was that James D. Macdonald has a criminal history. Ironically, there’s no express denial by James D. Macdonald in the posting. The only defense presented by James D. Macdonald was: “First thing is, Bouncing Bobby (since he doesn’t know much about books and writing, or the selling of same to the public) thinks that being a known criminal is a bar. It isn’t. E.g.: Willie Sutton; Edward Bunker.”  Sutton and Bunker were both notorious authors with criminal histories. Their criminal histories included bank robbery, drug dealingextortionarmed robbery, and forgery. (Side bar: Great references if you’re looking for role models.) Are these really the literary heroes that you want to align yourself with?

Is James D. Macdonald a known criminal? It may not be a bar to being a author; but it should call into question a “watchdog’s” credibility and any non-profit affiliations he/she may have. In the spirit of Sutton’s Law, additional research requires one to consider what is most observable and discoverable. Additional research will confirm or deny whether primary source material reveals evidence of this claim. However, James D. Macdonald could have eliminated any suspicion with a simple denial of any history of criminal activity. He didn’t. Now, we’re curious.

Ann Crispin and Victoria Strauss both claimed that the 2007 email was a blackmail attempt by Robert Fletcher. In addition, both avoided comment on whether or not James D. Macdonald does have a criminal history. What is most interesting is that Victoria Strauss would even dare to accuse another person of blackmail. That really took ovarian fortitude Victoria Strauss!

Victoria Strauss has been an ongoing subject of research regarding her clam that American Book Publishing has been the subject of an “investigation.” In her initial blog on this subject, Victoria Strauss was accused of blackmail herself. The purported claim of blackmail against Victoria Strauss suggests that she made a phone call to a police department and then falsely reported it as a police investigation regarding American Book Publishing in a retaliatory effort to distress and alarm authors. It has been suggested that this was in retaliation to American Book Publishing’s denial to put Victoria Strauss on their payroll as contract administrator and when they refused she followed up on a threat to post a false report. Victoria Strauss has yet to produce primary source material to validate her claim. Our extensive research and Freedom of Information requests have failed to produce evidence to substantiate Victoria Strauss’ claims.

A Note to New Authors . . . is Victoria Strauss Lying?

American Book Publishing, “Police Investigation” Victoria Strauss Fairy Tale?

What was Victoria’s Motivation? Missing Pieces to the Puzzle

UPDATED: April 4, 2011 – Boycott Victoria Strauss’ Books: Request to Reveal Evidence of “Investigation”

Letter to the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America


 “Sutton’s Law.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Web. 07 May 2011. <’s_law&gt;.

V6.00.2900.3028, Microsoft MimeOLE. “Making Light: Robert Fletcher, Part VI: The Monster and the Critics.” Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Web. 07 May 2011. <;.

Victoria Strauss — Someone Out There Doesn’t Like Us (And We Don’t Care).” Writer Beware™ Blogs! Web. 24 Mar. 2011. <>.


The Write Agenda: The Right Company to Keep

In A.C. Crispin, Absolute Write, Accountability, American Book Publishing, Ann Crispin, Atlanta Nights, Authors, Credibility, David L. Kuzminski, Filmmaker, Free e-book, Free ebook, Investigations, James D. MacDonald, Making Light, Preditors & Editors, Professionalism, Propaganda, Publish America, Publishers, Publishing, Rachael Saltzman, Reputation, Reputation Management, Robert Fletcher, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association, Self-Publishing, SFWA, Strategic Book Group, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, The Right Company to Keep, The Write Company to Keep, Travis Tea, Victoria Strauss, Writer Beware, Yog's Law on April 20, 2011 at 7:05 pm

“When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. When you have the law on your side, argue the law. When you have neither, holler.” – Al Gore

There is nothing more satisfying to log on to the internet and discover that you’ve been acknowledged by Making Light’s Moderator, Teresa Nielsen Hayden. In defense mode, Hadyen posted an article that stated that The Write Agenda “has been taking potshots at Victoria Strauss, Ann Crispin, our own Jim Macdonald, Absolute Write, Writer Beware, Preditors and Editors, SFWA,  Atlanta Nights, and other entities . . . .” In addition, while encouraging writers to avoid our company, she portrays our postings as “attacks” and that we are somehow affiliated with Robert Fletcher of The Literary Agent Group or C. Lee Nunn of American Book Publishing. The postings in response to her article are the typical propaganda retorts that reek of Ad hominem. Instead of addressing the arguments that we’ve posed, they want to make it personal calling us “cockroaches” and that our approach is somewhat akin to tactics utilized by the Church of Scientology[tm].

Firstly, we would not classify our postings as “potshots” or “attacks” on these individuals or entities. We’ve merely posted questions and requested proofs on some of their claims. For example, “American Book Publishing has been the focus of at least one police investigation.” Just because Victoria Strauss and the SFWA said it (or posted it) doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true. Historically, these individuals have provided proofs and vetted their claims. In this particular instance, regarding American Book Publishing, they are devoid of any substantive proofs. Any reasonable man would question such postings that lack primary source material to back them up. Secondly, as a matter of record, we are neither affiliated with Robert Fletcher and American Book Publishing nor are we collaborating in concert with them. Thirdly, we do not engage in self-promotion, encourage the purchase of our works or request donations.

It’s interesting to note that whenever an individual or entity questions the veracity of the watchdogs the response, by the minions, resembles those of “The Flying Monkeys” in The Wizard of Oz . . . obeying and protecting those in the hierarchy. Also, you are most likely to be called a “troll” or a “sock puppet.” These kinds of monkeys can be found on various internet sites and frequently engage in propaganda strategies that fail to address the issue at hand and are nothing more than baseless attacks. Resorting to personal attacks in lieu of addressing the real issues only furthers speculation and questions their own credibility. Moreover, the request for Victoria Strauss and the SFWA to personally admit, deny and prove the existence of a “police report” regarding American Book Publishing is a fair and reasonable question. Until Victoria Strauss and the SWFA break their silence, start fending for themselves and stop relying on “The Flying Monkeys” to continue to cloud the issues, the veracity of the claim that American Book Publishing was the subject of a “police investigation” will remain a blemish on their legitimacy. There isn’t any facts, there is no law (or police report) so keep hollering . . . that’s what Flying Monkeys do. It would be more legitimate to use this energy in a positive manner to compel Victoria Strauss and the SFWA to prove their claims or admit that they were fabricated stories; to continue to leave this issue open on the table is an insult to all parties in the publishing industry.

We graciously welcome your continued company. Writers, never stop questioning or demanding answers.

“For when even when your enemy acknowledges you exist . . . therein validity exists.”

– Anonymous

The Write Agenda has been following Making Light bloggers and commenters who have Twitter accounts. Patrick and I blocked them when we found them in our followers list. If you find them in your own list, do whatever amuses you most.

They’ve also posted a string of new blog entries denouncing me, Jim Macdonald, Yog’s Law, Ann Crispin, and other usual suspects, and an open letter to SFWA in which they misspell multiple names, grossly misquote Jim Macdonald and Robin Bailey, and demand that SFWA discipline, expel, and repudiate Ann Crispin, Victoria Strauss, and Jim Macdonald in order to preserve SFWA’s good name.

They do get one thing right, probably by accident: they point out that there’s an element of the argument ad hominem in my own remarks about the [sic] Write Agenda. That’s true! There is! And furthermore, it’s valid! There’s a long history of bad behavior on both their parts that tells us that if Robert Fletcher and/or C. Lee Nunn are associated with a project, prudent writers shouldn’t touch it with a ten-foot pole.”

Teresa Nielsen Hayden

For more information click on the following links:

Letter to the Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers of America

 UPDATED: 04/08/11 Facebook Exchange with “Atlanta Nights” Filmmaker, Rachael Saltzman

American Book Publishing, “Police Investigation” Victoria Strauss Fairy Tale?

What was Victoria’s Motivation? Missing Pieces to the Puzzle

Facebook Exchange with “Atlanta Nights” Filmmaker, Rachael Saltzman

 Florida Attorney General vs. Strategic Book Group: Lack of Evidence?

 How Pathetic Can Preditors & Editors David L. Kuzminski Be?

Cretella v. David L. Kuzminski (Preditors and Editors)

Writer Beware: Who’s not minding the forum? Boobs, Bras & Panties?

  “. . . [W]hen you sit in front of the blank screen and wonder if what you write will be good enough for the flying monkeys: Remember. You can never write well enough for the flying monkeys. And you don’t have to. Just write well enough to create that ecstatic sense of thunder on the keyboard, the rush of living large that comes from telling a story told with passion, not perfection. That keyboard thunder, that rage as you tear through a story with bliss and compassion and pathos and energy? It scares the flying monkeys. It scares them. It makes them cry big monkey tears. It’s why they hate you in the first place. (Emphasis Added).

–       Thomas Roche


 “Fallacy: Ad Hominem.” Holocaust Educational Resource. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <;.

 Monkeys, Flying. “How to Get Kicked In the Balls By Flying Monkeys and Not Fuck Up Your Lipstick | Write Sex.” Write SEX – The Definitive Guide to Writing Erotica. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <;.

“ProxyWhore.” Untitled Document. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 26 Apr. 2011. <;.

 Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Teresa. “Making Light: The Write Agenda: The Wrong Company to Keep.”Making Light. 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <;.

“When You Have the Facts on Your Side, Argue the Facts. When You Have the Law on Your Side, Argue the Law. When You Have Neither, Holler. by Al Gore.” Famous Quotes at QuoteDB – Interactive Database of Famous Quotations. Web. 20 Apr. 2011. <;.

Writer beware Ann Crispin Victoria Strauss The Write Agenda Passion Blue Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers SFWA John Scalzi Making Light Catherine Schaff-Stump cath best sellers thumbs down ac crispin a.c. crispin The burning land The awakened city The Garden of the Stone Guardian of the hills The Arm of the Stone Absolute Write Water Cooler Preditors & Editors Dave Kuzminski Jenna Glatzer James D. Macdonald Prof. Jim Fisher A Newbie’s Guide to Publishing A Writer’s Life Author! Author! Bookslut Booksquare Buzz, Balls, & Hype Dear Author GalleyCat How Publishing Really Works Making Light Passive Voice PersonaNonData POD, Self-Publishing and Independent Publishing The Book Publicity Blog The Query Project The Rejecter The Rejectionist The Synopsis Project Anna Louise Genoese Behler Blog Editorial Anonymous Editorial Ass Evil Editor Ashley Grayson Book Cannibal BookEnds Chip MacGregor Crowe’s Nest Dystel & Goderich Janet Reid Jennifer Jackson John Jarrold Lucienne Diver Nathan Bransford Noah Lukeman Pub Rants Rachelle Gardner The Knight Agency The Swivet The Zack Company Absolute Write Water Cooler Agent Research & Evaluation Author Assist Backspace Cynthia Leitich Smith’s Children’s and YA Resources Preditors & Editors Publishers Marketplace Query Shark QueryTracker The Rejectionist Starbridge

Pressure on Victoria Strauss to Address “Investigation” Continues

In Absolute Write, Accountability, American Book Publishing, Atlanta Nights, Authors, Credibility, Filmmaker, Professionalism, Propaganda, Publish America, Publishers, Rachael Saltzman, Reputation, Reputation Management, Robert Fletcher, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association on April 8, 2011 at 10:14 pm


Update 5/16/11: “Atlanta Nights” UNFUNDED, $18,702 Shy of Funding Support

In Absolute Write, Accountability, American Book Publishing, Ann Crispin, Atlanta Nights, Authors, Credibility, David L. Kuzminski, Filmmaker, Investigations, Law Suits, Preditors & Editors, Professionalism, Propaganda, Publish America, Publishers, Rachael Saltzman, Reputation, Reputation Management, Robert Fletcher, Science Fiction & Fantasy Writers Association, SFWA, Strategic Book Group, Travis Tea, Victoria Strauss on April 3, 2011 at 7:28 pm

UPDATE 5/16/11: Rachael Saltzman Fails to Raise Funding for “Atlanta Nights,” the Movie


There was no direct financial support from James D. Macdonald, Ann “A.C.” Crispin, Victoria Strauss (although they vigorously promoted the project) or any of the participants of the book’s project.

UPDATE 5/8/11: 9 days left, only 37 backers and only $6,188 raised towards the $25,000 goal.

“We only have a little over two weeks to make our funding, or we lose it all and start over – if you’re planning on donating, it must be soon! Help make this movie a reality.”

Atlanta Nights Facebook Page

Breakdown of pledges:

7 –   Pledged $1.00 or more

8 –   Pledged $10.00 or more

12 – Pledged $25.00 or more

1 –   Pledged $50.00 or more

2 –   Pledged $75.00 or more

3 –   Pledged $100.00 or more

1 –   Pledged $250.00 or more

1 –   Pledged $500.00 or more

0 –   Pledged $1000.00 or more

0 –   Pledged $5000.00 or more

0 –   Pledged $10,000.00 or more

There isn’t any indication of direct financial support from Ann Crispin, James D. Macdonald, Victoria Strauss et al. However, they remain actively engaged in promoting the project.

“The idea to turn this into a film is mine, and not the responsibility of any of the writers involved…. As a filmmaker, I take on risk with every single project that I do.”

Rachael Saltzman, Filmmaker (Facebook Posting)

UPDATE 04/08/11 – Today, Victoria Strauss posted an article in support of “Atlanta Nights.” Click Here to read the post in its entirety. The film project has a projected fundraising goal of $25,000. Filmmaker Rachael Saltzman, addressing potential legal ramifications, readily admits that the E&O (errors & omissions) insurance is nearly $10,000 alone. Currently, the film project has only 31 identified backers, only $1,063 has been pledged and 38 days remain on the fundraising project. The hard-copy of “Atlanta Nights” has a current Amazon Sales Ranking of 1,134,916. (Victoria Strauss and the SFWA remain the subjects of our research regarding a claim of a police “investigation” involving American Book Publishing which remains unsubstantiated. For more information Click Here).

“We will say nothing untrue.” – Rachael Saltzman

Rachael Saltzman: HAHAHAHA. That site [The Write Agenda] is also trying to defend Fletcher, who is wanted by the Florida Attorney general for fraud! I wonder who runs the site…there is certainly an obvious agenda. I looked at the post history. Every single post is a poor attempt at an attack on either P&E or Absolute Write, and personal attack against those who run it. Nobody has put their actual name as a creator of that joke of a blog, listing the creators as ‘a group of individuals’. Sure…

Rachael Saltzman: Looking further, the claims get more and more ridiculous. Including claiming that the filed and won suits against Fletcher don’t exist. Makes it pretty clear who runs it.

TWA: Rachel [Saltzman], I certainly hope that you are a better filmmaker than you are a reader. The site isn’t defending Robert Fletcher at all or any publisher for that matter. It is seeking to reveal the truth of the statements made by the “watchdogs” that you are obviously in bed with. There is no agenda there at all. What you want to call attacks are actually factually-based evidentiary proofs which dispute many “watchdog” claims. For example, Victoria Strauss has made numerous claims which appear to have been proven false through the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, there may be a major industry trade publication conducting an independent investigation of their own as a peer review to further substantiate the findings. Also, I do not see anything that remotely suggests that suits against Fletcher do not exist. They were very clearly acknowledged if you read carefully. You are playing the same game the “watchdogs” play . . . making statements with no credible evidence or documentation to back it up. Perhaps you are referring to the post regarding American Book Publishing. The posting about American Book Publishing does involve an “investigation” that doesn’t exist. Read. Read. Read. This really questions your ability to digest and synthesize what you have read. I surely hope that whatever script you have for “Atlanta Nights” is factual and that you digest it. Clearly, you are way off the mark. Kind of like the support of your request regarding the funding of your film venture. 31 backers, 43 days to go, need to raise $25,000 and you’ve only raised $1063? Maybe this means something . . . this lack of support for your project. You can continue to suckle the breasts of these “watchdogs” if you want . . . but please do it in a responsible, ethical and moral fashion. You have raised the bar on your credibility with these unsupported statements. If you can’t make factually correct statements, and back them up, you will be challenged. The last thing you need to be doing, especially when asking authors to financially support your defunct film project, is have your credibility questioned. Otherwise, you will appear to be a self-promoting predator yourself. Be responsible, this project could be a very defining event for your career and reputation.

Rachael Saltzman: Thanks for the free plug regarding my project! I’m not interested in ‘suckling’ anything, thanks; nor supporting a highly slanted agenda of vanity presses who masquerade as commercial publishing houses to mislead aspiring writers into thinking they have to spend money in order to be published. I’ve never been anything but impressed at the level of Victoria’s [Victoria Strauss] fact checking. Since she [Victoria Strauss], unpaid, puts herself at the front of the firing line on behalf of all writers, she knows full well how her statements must be substantiated, or risk numerous lawsuits from these vanity presses. They have tried, over and over, and each attack has been thrown out of court.

TWA: HAHA. I seriously doubt that my “plug” will cause any derivative benefit in this forum for your project. However, I wouldn’t doubt that was your motive and hidden agenda. I agree, in principle, with the cause for exposing scams and support it 100%. However, not everyone can be published by a “traditional” publisher. The pay-to-play publishing industry has its place and not all of them are scams. In the following post, there is a very clear incident where fact-checking has revealed unsubstantiated claims. If anything needs to be thrown out it is these apparent false claims on these postings. All of the police agencies were contacted and no report has been located. In addition, she [Victoria Strauss] has been requested to provide her evidence of this “investigation” and has failed to do so. She [Victoria Strauss] may know that her “statements must be substantiated,” but she’s [Victoria Strauss] failed to do so in this instance. If you’re not “suckling anything” you must be drinking Kool-Aid.

Rachael Saltzman: You posted about my project, not me. Must be a very well hidden agenda. I agree that vanity publishing has it’s place – upfront, honest printers, who don’t claim to be other than what they are. There are plenty of them. Lulu and CreateSpace have their purpose. Claiming to send books to Oprah? How about charging $99 to upload a novel for a screenplay contest that’s free to enter? How do you support activity like that?

TWA: You’re off topic. We were talking about your statements that 1) Robert Fletcher was being defended, and 2) your misreading of information. You are engaging in propaganda strategies, presenting data or issues that, while compelling, are irrelevant to the argument at hand, and then claiming that it validates the argument. How did Oprah, fee charging and the support thereof enter into this? P&E, Absolute Write, Victoria Strauss et al and some of their unsupported claims is the topic. However, since you mentioned it, I would be interested in seeing links from a non-traditional publisher claiming to send books to Oprah and charging $99 to upload a novel for a screen play contest. Of course, I wouldn’t support or defend these. Also, from my experience, sending your book to Oprah is futile and there is more to (behind the scenes) it than mere submission.

Rachael Saltzman: Actually, I’m not. These are well documented offers from Publish America, the publisher that we’re discussing on this very page. About the Amazon competition – many links.

Rachael Saltzman: All about PA’s continuing offers (all for pay, of course). Please tell me how these are legitimate.

Rachael Saltzman::$file/WritersLiteraryGuildComplaint.pdf Here’s the suit against Fletcher, which he lost. He then ran to Utah.

TWA: Yes, this is the page but it wasn’t the topic that you initially raised. (See above)

TWA: The case against Fletcher was never contested. Utah? You’re confusing this with American Book Publishing which is an unaffiliated business entity.

Rachael Saltzman: The point raised was about personal attacks, which, I might add, you attempted to throw at me in this very thread. You jabbed at my reading comprehension and professional abilities, attacked my personal project, and accused me of ‘suckling’. I chose to ignore those for the sake of a clear argument, and again, question your support for these companies. When presented with verifiable links, you choose to say that I’m ‘off topic’, rather than addressing the issue.

Rachael Saltzman: ABP – charges a fee to be ‘published’. Fees to the initial tune of $800, claims that they’re looking for ‘the next great talent’, and a series of other red flag remarks. AKA – claims to be a small commercial press, but asks writers for money. What more, exactly, do you need to know?

TWA: Your ignorance regarding your reading comprehension is well-documented herein. You don’t have it correct and you clearly have not grasped the postings. Fletcher is not being defended, Fletcher is not “wanted” (it’s a civil case, not criminal), the case that doesn’t exist refers to American Book Publishing (not Fletcher) and Fletcher didn’t run to Utah (American Book Publishing is in Utah and has no relationship to Fletcher). So, you wonder why anyone would question your reading comprehension? I didn’t attack your professional abilities; if you took it that way I apologize. I merely warned you to be credible, vetted and substantiate claims in your professional pursuits. Your reputation will be at stake and interested parties certainly will be watching and reviewing your end product. You are entering into dangerous territory and you are going to need thick skin. I do not support these companies. I do support truthful reporting and supporting claims with primary source material. Referring to sites that have questionable unvetted postings does not do that. However, the fact that you’ve posted the link to the Attorney General’s complaint is a good start. Yes, that proves that there is indeed an investigation . . . still pending but is true. That’s what it’s all about. Proofs. We all have our own hero’s and sometimes they fail us. The question is how long do we continue to “suckle” and drink their Kool-Aid when claims appear to be false. The point is that there comes a point where people need to have the opportunity to be presented with both sides of an issue. Unfortunately, many are not capable of thinking for themselves are guided into the cult-ish propaganda and misinformation. Too many individuals, many first time authors, unfortunately take this kind of information as gospel. I’m all about “fair & balanced” information. If there was a police “investigation” regarding American Book Publishing, wouldn’t there be a document like the link you provided regarding Fletcher? Wouldn’t the police agencies have a document available under the Freedom of Information? But, there isn’t. Do you seriously support this kind of reporting? Personally, if there was I would support the findings therein. I’m not taking sides. I’ll call a scam a scam. For now, the scam being perpetrated is the lack of information regarding this police “investigation.” There are other instances of misinformation like this one below. If these claims regarding delays could be substantiated, I would fully support it. However, again, there is no proof and it’s merely more propaganda.

TWA: I’m curious to know, is your “Atlanta Nights” project a for-profit enterprise? Proceeds from the sale of the book go to the SFWA‘s Emergency Medical Fund. How will the proceeds from the movie be utilized?

Rachael Saltzman: It’s very sweet of you to be so concerned about my reputation, and the spread of ‘propaganda’. I am wondering if this isn’t a pointed attempt for more blog hits, as you keep posting to your blog. For someone so concerned about ‘showing both sides’, the post display a remarkable lack of evidence, and a heavy bias. I’ve no issue with editorials, but displaying such under the pretense of ‘balance’ is highly suspect. Do keep up with the personal attacks, they do wonders toward making your posts look balanced and reasonable. And you have yet to actually discuss any of the points that I’ve brought up. Good luck to you, I’m done here.

TWA: Yeh, we’re both kinda self-serving bitches aren’t we? And, in that regard, I did plug your project. So, that’s fair and balanced. Yes, the posts do show a lack of evidence. Especially from the people that you are defending. Again, your reading comprehension has much to be desired. And, don’t even think of defending yourself by my failure to address your points. You raised issues which I did in fact address, you made statements which demonstrated that you didn’t read the posts, you engaged in further baseless propaganda of the very issues you initially raised. Now, you’ve conveniently clouded the issues when you were called to task on the initial ones that you raised. You’re in good company . . . that’s how they roll.


“Well, be sure to send a film crew to interview Victoria Strauss, Jim Macdonald [James D. Macdonald], and yours truly. We were all involved with the project, to varying degrees. I’m the one that “took responsibility” for it when PublishAmerica announced that people were going to prison for doing it.”

Ann Crispin

“It’s easy to treat it all as a joke, but do be careful, not just with what you do but with what you say. Retaliatory lawsuits may be frivolous, but you still have to defend yourself–and that’s not a joke.”

Victoria Strauss

“8th, don’t forget to put some $$$ away for legal expenses. More than likely, the evil triplets will be watching this very closely.”

– Nick Anthony

“Yeah, it is a concern. The legal stuff. We will say nothing untrue. E&O (errors and omissions) insurance is about ten thousand by itself, which is a little scary.”

Rachael Saltzman

“Very true. I should strike that statement. I have been incredibly careful about what I’ve said and typed elsewhere. Giddiness made me momentarily foolish, and it will not happen again. Thank you.”

Rachael Saltzman

Atlanta Nights – The Movie! – Absolute Write Water Cooler.” Absolute Write. Web. 04 Apr. 2011. <>.

Atlanta Nights: The Movie – Wall | Facebook.” 26 Apr. 2011. Web. 07 May 2011. <;.

Atlanta Nights: The Movie by Rachael Saltzman — Kickstarter.” Kickstarter. Web. 07 May 2011. <;.

Crispin, A.C. “Atlanta Nights – The Movie! – Absolute Write Water Cooler.” Absolute Write. 17 Feb. 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2011. <>.

Strauss, Victoria. “Atlanta Nights, the Movie: From Hoax to Film.” Writer Beware™ Blogs! 8 Apr. 2011. Web. 08 Apr. 2011. <>.

Strauss, Victoria. “Atlanta Nights – The Movie! – Absolute Write Water Cooler.” Absolute Write. 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 04 Apr. 2011. <>.

April 6, 2011 Update

Current Rank 7-Day Average 30-Day Average 90-Day Average Lifetime Average Best Rank Worst Rank
1,124,593 1,111,684 1,111,684 1,111,684 1,111,684 1,106,362 1,119,227
Rank Copies Sold/day
1 3000
10 650
100 100
1000 13
10,000 2.2 (11 copies every 5 days)
100,000 0.2 (1 copy every 5 days)
1,000,000 0.006 (3 copies every 500 days)
2,000,000 0.0001 (1 copy every 1000 days)