Talk:Atlanta Nights

Don't understand

I don't understand--vanity publishers publish whatever you pay them to publish. They have no real standards. This is not a revelation. It's part of the definition of vanity publisher. Why is this worthwhile (much less something like the Sokal Hoax)? --Fastfission 00:01, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The issue was that PublishAmerica claimed not to be a vanity press - they claimed to be a Real Publisher, with Editorial Standards, &c. &c. - ie, not to show up vanity presses, but to show up this particular one. Shimgray 00:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not only that, but apparently PublishAmerica is one of those scammy vanity presses that promise hopeful authors enormous sales and royalties - but first, there are a few start-up costs. Advertising, editing fees, etc. - none of which is actually done. These sorts of publishers victimize people who don't know that if a traditional publisher really thought their book would sell that well then they would be paying for all that, in hopes of making it back from their cut of the book's cover price. Bryan 01:42, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

See for example Jason D. Fodeman, whose PublishAmerica book was covered in the news media as if it had been accepted by a traditional publisher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say so in the article, but I'm guessing that those who perpetrated the hoax paid for the book to be published, as you have to do with vanity publishers. Whether or not the author has to pay is the real criterior for being a vanity publisher. - Matthew238 00:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

PublishAmerica are known to take exception to being described as a vanity publisher, therefore blatantly calling them one may be a little risky, and is almost certainly not neutral POV (there do seem to be some good arguments to support their position, most notably that they claim not to charge upfront fees to the author). Perhaps 'alleged vanity publisher' would be a better phrasing? -- anon

No - they didn't have to pay to be published. PublishAmerica doesn't directly charge for their books to be printed, but the authors typically have to pay when they buy their books from the company and try to sell them themselves. Blackcats 02:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that the article currently depicts them from the beginning as just being a vanity publisher--as such it is no surprise that they published whatever they were paid to. As it stands, it is about as exciting as a "hoax" with poetry.com whereby I get them to publish a crappy poem (and then try to sell it to me in an anthology)--not terribly surprising. I also dare to say that I think comparisons with the Sokal Affair are a bit strained--I don't think most people assume Science Fiction to be pretend to be quite as important as does academia. --Fastfission 00:41, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

PA Quote

As a question of style, should the phrase "science fiction authors" in the PA quote be a wikilink? It doesn't feel right to me, somehow. I don't really remember anything from the Wiki Manual of Style that's directly on point here, but it seems to me that wikilinks inside attributed quotes should probably be reserved for words or terms whose meaning a reader might reasonably be expected not to know otherwise, since it's not like the original source quote already had those links in it. --Ray Radlein 18:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't supposed to be a wikilink -- it's supposed to indicate that a portion of the sentence has been replaced with what the context makes clear that it refers to. The original quotes:

They have no clue about what it is to write real-life stories, and how to find them a home. [1]

But, alas, the SciFi and Fantasy genres have also attracted some of the lesser gods, writers who erroneously believe that SciFi, because it is set in a distant future, does not require believable storylines, or that Fantasy, because it is set in conditions that have never existed, does not need believable every-day characters. [2]

So phrases that meant "science fiction authors" were replaced with "[Science fiction authors]" to clarify what the quote meant but acknowledge that those exact words did not occur at that place in the quote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If my brain had been working a little bit better at the time, I would have noticed that the wikilinks had appeared in place of the square brackets that had originally been there, and I (hopefully) would have figured out that someone had simply thought they were correcting an unfortunate typo when they wikified them. Duh. Oh well. Thanks! --Ray Radlein 23:53, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Atlanta_Nights_hoax?

The info on these two pages are almost identical. demo 08:11, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Yeah. I think merging that article into this one would be the best approach; that way this article can continue sitting in the "2005 books" category with a title the same as that of the book. I'll add the templates and do the merging tomorrow sometime if nobody objects. Bryan 08:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removed speculation from article

The following text was removed from the article because it appeared to be original research:

There is, however, a question if this "hoax" isn't a "hoax" in and of itself. Some say that the writers didn't allow PA to publish their work because their lawyers advised them not to. However, this only leaves hearsay evidence. PublishAmerica has said nothing about the incident in a public form. Plus, what the authors set out to prove they didn't prove. SFFWA claims that they get hundreds of complaints about the company. However, what kinds of complaints can they get; especially in comparison to what the athors set out to prove.

The Possibilities are:

They won't publish my manuscript? That would prove that PublishAmerica does what it says. Not just anything will get published.

They don't "improve" my work? Better and more in line with what the "hoax" authors intended to show.

They did publish my work? That could easily prove what the "hoax" writers were trying to show. However, it also undercuts why anyone would be complaining who wanted to get their work published.

The company didn't do ALL the things they promised? This can show that PublishAmerica is a bad company. Yet, it doesn't seem to cover the question the "hoax" authors set out to prove.

None of the questions prove the incident didn't happen, but it does bring it in doubt to some extent.

I copied it here because there might be something salvageable. However... I doubt it. We have "This only leaves hearsay evidence" immediately after hearsay evidence presented with that famously elusive "Some say..." Honestly, the more I look at it the more I regret even saving it; all it offers is "If we leap to the conclusion that every single thing said about the incident by anyone other than PublishAmerica is a lie, here are some alternate conclusions we can invent." -- Antaeus Feldspar 9 July 2005 16:42 (UTC)

False Link?

The reference in the main article from Andrew Burt (as having written a chapter of the book) links to the British actor of that name. I suspect that this is a false link, as there is no indication in the article that he has written anything, let alone being a known science fiction author. However, I would like a second opinion before deleting the link. Jon Rob

I'd suggest not deleting it, but rather disambiguating it to Andrew Burt. Eventually someone may write an article about the writer as well and this will make it easier to ensure it's linked up properly. Bryan Derksen 06:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Submission, acceptance and then repudiation

The article section with the same title (above), contains this line:

The contract was reviewed with legal counsel, and the decision was made not to carry the hoax to actually publishing the book.

I had to re-read it a couple of times because the passive voice makes it unclear who's counsel conducted the review. I assume it was the hoaxers, but can we confirm this?

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 38?

Who wrote chapter 38? There's no author listed, nor is there any reason given why it wouldn't have needed an author (like there is for chapters 17 and 34), nor any mention of it in preceding text, so, ah, what is it? Twin Bird (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Atlanta Nights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030100139/http://www.scifidimensions.com:80/May05/ahschadenfreud.htm to http://www.scifidimensions.com/May05/ahschadenfreud.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to ftp://ftp.sff.net/pub/people/doylemacdonald/sting/Contract.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

General notability

This article reads like it was written by the authors of their book, who were particularly smug about their accomplishment. Their findings were not notable, influential or even interesting. This reads like a weak prank that is unsuitable for an encyclopedia.2.98.54.161 (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)