September 21st, 2006
The ongoing saga of The Da Vinci Code (Or: the Bob Loblaw Law Blog)
I know some of you think I’m Ahab to Murray Chass’s Dick. That’s not the first time I’ve been accused of white whaling a guy: former Times editor Howell Raines was convinced my coverage of the disastrous consequences of his nightmarish tenure stemmed from some made-up grudge. And there’s Dan Brown, the well-known composer of soft-rock paeans to phone sex operators: I’ve intermittently covered a case in which he’s been accused of plagiarism since 2003, first at Newsweek, more recently at Vanity Fair; Brown’s publisher, agent, and lawyer have all intimated I have it out for the guy. (If anything, I think there should be more songs about phone sex.)
The crux of that case is this: Lewis Perdue, author of Daughter of God and Da Vinci Legacy (among other thrillers), thought Brown had cribbed The Da Vinci Code from his work. When I read the two books, I thought Perdue had a point; unlike the laughably preposterous Holy Blood, Holy Grail case (which was brought to trial in London), Perdue’s book and Brown’s book were remarkably similar, at least to my eyes (which admittedly haven’t spent a lot of time reading religious-themed page-turners). It’s a weird, complicated case, which Perdue eventually lost — a pretty resounding defeat, actually — and to get the full rundown you’ll probably need to read the VF story.
There is some new news in the case, and, since I always find it weird when people make a big deal out of stories and then never follow up, here it is. After Perdue lost his case in Federal Court, Random House asked for approximately $300,000 in attorney’s fees, an amount which would more or less bankrupt Perdue (but wouldn’t add much to the hundreds of millions of dollars Brown and Random House have made off Da Vinci Code). On August 30, a court-appointed magistrate recommended against attorney’s fees being awarded; last week, the federal judge in the case — the same one that had ruled against Perdue — agreed. This is interesting for a couple of reasons:
1. It means that, while Perdue may have spent a couple of years of his life devoted to this, he won’t risk losing his house.
2. The federally appointed magistrate, in his carefully worded ruling, appeared to come close to disagreeing with the judge’s initial decision. (Without getting into specifics of summary and declaratory judgments, the initial decision essentially ruled that Perdue didn’t even have the right to have his claim heard before a jury because there was no way he’d win.) To wit: “Although it is true that, after a thorough review of each of the factors described above the court determined that an average lay observer would conclude that The Da Vinci Code ‘is simply a different story than that told by Daughter of God,’ Perdue proffered e-mail he received from ‘lay observers,’ who claimed Brown had ‘plagiarized’ Perdue’s work. In addition, a forensic linguist also supported Perdue’s claims. Moreover, the Court notes that, although the August 4 Opinion is a sweeping rejection of all Perdue’s allegations of similarity, the court neither characterized Perdue’s claims as frivolous nor stated that they were close to frivolous. Therefore, the Court finds that Perdue’s counterclaims were objectively reasonable.” (Caveat emptor: I’m no lawyer, and often find the legal world through-the-looking-glass weird. For example, I thought it strange that the judge in the case borrowed huge sections, word-for-word, from the Random House/Brown brief in his ruling in favor of Random House/Brown; in journalism (or academia), that’s the kind of thing that would get you, you know, fired. But apparently this is not out of the ordinary in rulings. Go figure.)
3. It’s always amusing when a request for $300,000 gets knocked down to $256.13, which is what the judge eventually ruled for.
At this point, the case is pretty much over…although in August, Perdue did ask the Supreme Court to look at the case, which is the only way he can get it reexamined. All of those details — and many, many more — are available on one of the several sites Perdue maintains devoted to the case. (Speaking of white whales…)
September 20th, 2006
I’ve traveled every road in this here land
(But only if “this here land” is defined as New England.) That’s right, folks: tonight begins the last leg of the great 2006 Feeding the Monster Tour, with stops tonight in Providence, tomorrow in Newton (home of the Tigers!), and Friday in Burlington, MA. There’ll be selected dates here and there through the end of the year — October in Brattleboro, November in Springfield — but besides that, this week your last chance to ask me about trades, non-trades, NASCAR, long-term strategies, Kevin Millar’s obsession with Manny Ramirez’s anatomy, or anything else having to do with last year, this year, or next year.* After that, it’s spring break for me. It’s my favorite holiday. Nothing gets me more excited.
Hope to see you all down the road…
*If you work for a large (or even medium sized company) based in either New York or Boston and want me to come speak/read to you, get in touch: I have done a bunch of private-ish readings for groups, which I’m almost always happy to do. Especially if said group has a lot of folks that want to buy books. One warning: my rider for those events stipulates unlimited juice.
September 20th, 2006
Not to be a smart-ass, but hasn’t he learned his lesson?
I recognize the irony in my asking why there are people in the world who’ve been burned by their dumb-ass comments before and still make egregiously misguided statements to the press.
Like A-Rod. It’s been five-plus years since he permanently alienated Derek Jeter with his “he’s never had to lead” comments to Esquire. In the current SI, Tom Verducci has a bunch of juicy quotes in his magnificent, 5,000-word piece on Rodriguez’s struggles with the Yankees, titled “The A-Rod Agonistes.”
A quick read reveals this as perhaps the most incendiary quote: “Mussina doesn’t get hammered at all. He’s making a boatload of money. Giambi’s making ($20.4 million), which is fine and dandy, but it seems those guys get a pass. When people write (bad things) about me, I don’t know if it’s (because) I’m good-looking, I’m biracial, I make the most money, I play on the most popular team.” (That quote is eerily reminiscent of the manner in which Kevin Millar anonymously slammed Curt Schilling last year; I recount the whole incident in the book. Suffice to say there are plenty of corners of the Sox’s clubhouse that don’t miss Mr. Cowboy Up.) A-Rod also says, “I can’t help that I’m a bright person. I know that’s not a great quote to give, but I can’t pretend to play dumb and stupid.” Which begs the question: if you’re so smart, why are you giving quotes you know will cause problems?
Sure, Jason Giambi’s quotes in the piece are more revealing — Giambi tells the extent to which the team was frustrated with A-Rod and describes his asking Torre to toughen up on the Yankees’ maligned third baseman — but Giambi is one of the more popular members on the team. Alex is not.
(The NY sports media is, predictably, all over this. I can’t imagine the story will disappear in the next few days.
The Times: “As Yankees March On, a Reminder of Rodriguez’s Summertime Swoon”
The Post: “Spoiled Rotton”
The Daily News: “Giambi Told Torre to Get Tough on Alex“)
September 20th, 2006
Gammons back at Fenway, with mic in hand
Yesterday, Peter Gammons posted his first ESPN column since suffering a brain aneurysm earlier this summer (or, as Gammons would surely say, earlier this season). (Article available to ESPN Insider subscribers only.)
Peter was without question the nicest, smartest, most knowledgeable reporter I met while working on FTM. There were folks who wanted to know what some punk was doing wandering around Fenway and getting unfettered access to everyone in the organization, folks who felt any new reporter should spend a year or two proving his mettle, and folks who just ignored me. (There were also many more folks who were lovely and nice and generous with their time.) Peter was the polar opposite (of the first group, not the second). From the night I had dinner with him in spring training, he constantly shared his time and insights, and watching games with him from his seats behind home plate was one of the joys of the last year.
Gammons’s return will certainly give Sox fans plenty to talk about. In his first column, he gives an obligatory tip of the cap to the Yankees’ acquisition of Abreu; he also writes that “no races turned in July or August on the transaction page”…which should provoke some debate among those members of RSN convinced that this or that trade would have catapulted the Sox into the playoffs. (Gammons also addresses a topic I think will become an increasing source of discussion among fans: the extent to which the new economics of baseball effect the free-agent market: “‘The story of the trading deadline and the last couple of free-agent classes should be titled, Revenue-sharing is working,’ says one baseball executive,” Gammons writes. More on this in a future post.)
Tonight, Gammons will be broadcasting live from Fenway for both the 6 pm edition of Sports Center and the 7 pm edition of Baseball Tonight. That’s great news for everyone. Welcome back, commissioner.
September 20th, 2006
In which I resist the temptation to pun off a Dylan song: the much-discussed radio show, now for free
(This info comes courtesy of the Very Short List, a soon-to-be-launched daily email update of “the best entertainment, media, and culture. … Each weekday, VSL subscribers get to read about a single recommended gem.” VSL hasn’t officially been launched yet — I’ll include info when it is — but the selections they’ve had so far in their testing phase has been great. Oh, also: it’s free.)
Since my post about Dylan’s “Theme Time Radio Hour” on XM satellite radio, I’ve gotten plenty of emails asking how people can hear said show without signing up for XM. Now there’s a way: AOL has started offering free streaming of Dylan’s show via AOL radio. You’ll need an AOL signon or an AIM screen name; if you don’t already have one, you can get one for free. The show airs Wednesday mornings at 10 am and noon, Fridays at 6 pm, and Sundays at 8 am and 8 pm. To find it, go to the XM menu on the AOL radio page and click on “Deep Tracks” at any of the appointed times; the show will start streaming automatically.
September 19th, 2006
Murray Chass: Facts are not my friends.
Poor Murray Chass. The Red Sox aren’t playing the Yankees again this season, thereby depriving him of his favorite subject; that means that he’ll have to write completely nonsensical columns about other subjects.
Like the Mets! In today’s column, written the morning after the Mets clinched their first division championship since 1988, Chass manages to find a raincloud in the midst of the Champagne celebrations. “When is losing good for business?” Chass asks in the lead of his piece. “When the Mets are on the verge of clinching their first division title since 1988 and their fans buy tickets hoping to be at the game when they do.” The Mets, Chass claims, “sold more than 10,000 extra tickets for last night’s game at Shea Stadium because they had lost all three weekend games in Pittsburgh and still needed one victory to wrap up first place in the National League East.” (Chass actually implied the team might have considered losing some more games in order to sell some more tickets: “No one can blame the Mets for trying to make a few extra bucks.”)
Wow: 10,000 extra tickets. That is impressive. It also seems to have absolutely no relation to reality. Last night’s attendance was 46,729; in Chass-land, that means the Mets sell only around 36,000 tickets on nights when the team is not on the verge of clinching their division. In fact, in the entire second half of the season, the Mets’ home attendance has dipped below 45,000 only nine times, has been under 40,000 thrice, and under 35,000 only once (August 18 versus Colorado).
This completely made up piece of information transitions into an extended riff on the Mets’ problems with left-handed pitching (”Now that they are there, though, the Mets have to deal with a slice of reality. They have recently had trouble beating left-handed pitchers”) before explaining why the losses against lefthanders actually have nothing to do with the opposing teams’ starters (”According to Elias Sports Bureau, in the 25 games started by right-handers before last night, the Mets’ starting pitchers had a 3.74 earned run average. … In the 19 games that left-handers started, the Mets’ starting pitchers had a 7.18 E.R.A.”).
I think I finally have the formula down: Start out with an incorrect anecdote; awkwardly transition to a totally seperate subject; then explain why the reader should ignore everything just written about said seperate subject. (At least the Times seems to realize Chass isn’t going to lure new readers to the paper; under the paper’s Times Select program, some of the paper’s columnists are put behind a wall, necessitating on-line readers to pay for the columns separately. As you can see from the front of the Sports Section, Harvey Araton is one of those columnists today; Murray Chass is not.)
EDIT: Even Chass’s colleagues at the Times seem to be refuting his claims of 10,000 extra tickets being sold. As Jack Curry wrote in yesterday’s paper, the Mets had sold 40,000 tickets for Monday’s game as of Sunday night; it appears as if about 2,000 of these were sold after the Mets lost to the Pirates, which would mean the most ticket sales could have increased is 8,000. This, of course, doesn’t take into account Mets’ normal day-of-game sale numbers, which could be 500 or could be 8,000; we’ll never know, which isn’t surprising: the Times has a track record of not providing context when it’s needed to make sense of a story.
September 18th, 2006
Strike two: the vicious circle that is David Ortiz at the plate
This morning, someone asked me if I felt like a more informed observer as a result of my research while working on FTM. It was a tough question to answer: on the one hand, I now feel as if there are hundreds of previously unknown subplots unfolding when I watch a game; on the other hand, I’m also much more aware of how much I don’t know.
Take David Ortiz’s at bats. He has, as anyone who has seen an inning or two of a Sox game can tell you, been known to voice his displeasure at called strikes he feels are out of the zone. When you’re watching the game on TV, it’s pretty easy to tell if Ortiz’s complaints are justified (as they were in the second game of yesterday’s doubleheader); it’s impossible to tell whether Ortiz is the subject of more crappy calls than most. But last year, I sitting with some of the team’s baseball operations crew at Fenway when Ortiz started shaking his head and barking at an umpire. “Just shut up, David,” one of the guys said. I asked if Ortiz complained more than most. “He bitches more than anyone in the league. He also gets more crappy calls than anyone in the league.” (This wasn’t conjecture; it was actually something the Sox had looked into.) And so it goes, goes round again: Ortiz complains, umps get pissed (consciously or subconsciously), he gets squeezed, and he complains some more. The good news: it doesn’t seem to be adversely affecting his hitting much.
In other news, the Sox took three out of four from the Yankees, and there was plenty to be happy about over the weekend: the continuation of gutsy pitching performances from unlikely starters; the joy of watching Dustin Pedroia and David Murphy get their sea legs; a ray of hope that perhaps Coco Crisp will actually be a decent center fielder (as impressive as his well-timed leap to rob Posada of a home run was, I was just as happy with the good jump Crisp got on the ball); and Mike Timlin learning how to close. (Again.) Don’t tune out yet, folks: the Sox won’t be playing in October, but that doesn’t mean baseball isn’t the best game out there.
