Category: Dealing with People

FX’s “The Americans” and the Issue of Assimilation


628x471A couple of months ago, on the subway, I looked to my left and glimpsed an article that a person next to me was reading.  My eye caught a headline – it was a review of the first season of FX's new show The Americans, which I haven't seen at that point.  

Do you know that our eyes scan a text much faster than our brains can register the information we see, yet the familiar data will always stand out?  I looked at the page for no more than 10 seconds, but I could've sworn that I saw a mentioning of Homeland there.  So, I allowed myself to look again (I actually consider it rude when people read over each other's shoulders in public transportation, but couldn't resist in this case).  My eyes returned me to the right place and I've read a verbose sentence, which amounted pretty much to the critic's opinion that, as far as spies-vs.-federal-agents shows go,  in some ways The Americans was better than Homeland.

Being a devoted fan of Carrie Mathison's completely fucked up character, I decided to check out the FX's (co-produced by Steven Spielberg/Kathleen Kennedy's Amblin Entertainment) period piece (it's set during one of the Cold War's coldest periods, the 80s) about two KGB officers, who have been implanted into American suburbs as a married couple, Elizabeth and Phillip Jennings, sometimes in the 1960s.  So, I watched (and enjoyed) the first 4 episodes of the show.  

Alas, it's not Homeland (oh, the "professional" critics!): the intensity of the storytelling, the multi-layered subtlety of every single character of the Showtime's hit series – they are not there.  I mean, the fact that I was able to stop after 4 episodes and indefinitely postpone watching the rest speaks for itself.  I wouldn't be able to do it with Homeland.  But it's definitely a very well-made, higher-quality entertainment.  It succeeds in tricking the audience into the same fucked up experience of not wanting the main characters, clearly enemies and murderers, to get caught.  I definitely plan to watch the rest at some point.

But it's uncanny how a human mind functions – its associative powers work in mysterious ways.  The most persistent train of thought The Americans evoked in me had nothing to do with the spydom shenanigans; it was about the intricacies of social and cultural assimilation. 

You see, the series' main characters, even though pretend to be US-born, are essentially a first-generation immigrant couple transplanted onto American soil, flawless and accentless English notwithstanding.  No matter how intensive their training was back in Russia, it could not have prepared them for the lifestyle and social conditions so acutely different from their homeland.  There is a flashback in one of the first episodes that takes us back to "the Jennings'" supposedly first night in America: They enter some motel room and marvel at the cool air coming out of the conditioning unit in the window.  That's it.  And there is nothing else needed to accentuate the dramatic shift - even the KGB generals, who blessed their clandestine future, didn't have air conditioners in their offices at the time.

Fifteen years later, at the show's "present" time,  they don't marvel at the household conveniences anymore – people get used to comforts very quickly.  However, their socio-psychological adaptation to American life is a completely different matter. 

Phillip/Mischa (Matthew Rhys, an immensely talented and versatile Welsh actor, who himself is obviously assimilating quite well in Hollywood what with five years of playing Sally Field's gay son on Brothers & Sisters and now this series)  has completely embraced the American culture and lifestyle.  He obviously considers this suburb, this house, this cover business truly his own.  For him, it feels like home here.  He listens to the same music his very American kids do and speaks their lingo.  He even annoys his teenage daughter at the mall in a goofy, American-dad kind of way: He tries on cowboy boots and does a bit of a country dancing to the music playing on the overhead system.  He's assimilated to the point that the idea of defecting to FBI is not just plausible, it's desirable and he proposes it to his wife practically in the second episode.   

This suggestion is met by Elizabeth/Nadezhda (a convincing Keri Russell, whose severe appearance effectively helps you to forget her soft and fuzzy Felicity past) with a scorn that goes way beyond the slighted sense of duty and reverence for the higher purpose of the "brighter future" she believes she serves.  It's not just the ideology talking – you can feel that she LOVES Mother-Russia and still treats her life in America as an assignment.

Living and working in New York City,  you deal with immigrants practically every single moment you are at work or in public.  And I cannot even begin to tell you what a spectrum of various assimilation degrees one can observe, if one cares to look.  Middle-aged and older people, of course, have more difficult time adjusting.  But I know young people, who came to this country as teenagers from China, India, Pakistan, Russia, Middle East, went to high schools and colleges here, but have no interest in American culture. 

They read only their native-language newspapers, watch only cable channels that show news and movies from their home-countries, even use specific nationally-oriented search engines.  These people usually live in the areas predominately populated by their countrymen and frequently end up working for the businesses ran by them as well.  It is virtually impossible to have a conversation with them about anything that we consider a common knowledge.  They live here for decades, but they give you an impression that they just came from some remote planet.  And the longing for their native land is just astonishing, even if it is the most oppressive place on Earth imaginable! Ok, Elizabeth/Nadezhda was sent here to spy, but why these other people came? For the conditioned air? 

What I realized, after years of dealing with immigrants, was that the ones with higher ability to assimilate are generally more open-minded, more adaptable, and more cultured people.  Those who read Faulkner, watched Coppola, and listened to Jimi Hendrix before they came to the States will continue immersing themselves into American culture.  They are the ones who end up caring about the national politics and the future of their new home.  The other ones - how can we consider them Americans, even if they carry the US passports?           

CFO Folklore: Watch Out for Sudden Meetings Behind Closed Doors


Proximity%20hotel%20-%20acoustical%20harmony%20wallcoveringIf you are an executive employee (i.e. hired help, not an owner) in a small business,  you know what I'm talking about. 

Everything used to be pretty transparent: The owner(s) dropped by your office and discussed strategic issues sitting in front of your desk.  They ran their ideas by you, stealing yours in the process, which you didn't mind, because you've learned to think of it as a sign of their appreciation.  You were a mandatory participant in tactical meetings with various third-parties and considered a welcomed member of the Board of Directors.  You were copied on all email exchanges, etc.

Then, BLAM! All of a sudden everything is hush-hush.  And it's not like you did anything wrong or have been slacking.  No, you are still your highly professional and ingenious self.  Yet, when the owners meet (without you now), they close the doors.  You know that there are meetings going on without you.  You know that there are important matters that your general business acumen could've helped to resolve, but the owners don't seek your opinion anymore.  From what you can see (and if you are a CFO, you see more than anyone else)  they need your help, but they don't want it.  You are excluded from anything outside of your direct professional responsibilities. 

And this is unpleasant, to say the least, because, let's face it:

(a) It's a negative change – it would be better not to be included in the first place, then experience rejection for some unknown reason; one minute you were special, an equal, and another (this is how you feel) you are not different from the receptionist, and

(b) The whole damn thing forces you into a guessing mode, which is a direct way to anxiety and depression.

While this situation is definitely common, I will allow that reasons behind it could vary from business to business, and from one owner's personality to another.  Yet, I bet that the following four scenarios, crystallized from years of close observation of various business owners, are applicable to the majority of cases:

1.  The owner(s) feel intimidated by you. This happens very frequently.  Many businessmen have superiority complex and think that they are the smartest people in any room.  And then you enter the picture.  At some point the owner realizes that you know more, catch faster, and handle things better than him. 

Most hired execs (including yours truly) think it's unfair that We, the brilliant and the laudable, are forced to work for "some schmucks," but the person on the other side is hurting too.  No, no, no, I'm not going to feel sorry for the poor millionaire boss, but just think for a second – he is caught between the understanding how important you are for the company and his desire to stop feeling like an idiot in your presence. 

This sounds like a difficult situation, but rationally speaking this is the best case scenario.  IF the boss is a logical person, who cares for his company's (and his own) well being - he will come around; the doors will be opened again.  Of course, if he is a self-centered asshole on an ego trip and nothing else matters… see Scenario 4b. 

2.  The owners fucked something they are responsible for and the business is not doing well (you, the CFO, may not even know it, because the commercial errors didn't translate themselves into fiscal events  yet, but it's coming).  The last thing they need at this point is you judging them with your I-told-you-so eyes.  They feel so awkward that they'd rather hide away than use your help.

3.  The troubles are even worth – to the degree that makes them loose sleep and keeps them in a state of perpetual panic.  The problem may not even be caused by the business that employs you.  For example, one of the owners just got an audit notice from IRS; he knows that some shit could be found in his other businesses that will destroy everything.  Or an owner got busted with large quantities of cocaine on him.  Stuff like that.  Well, you should consider yourself lucky that you are not invited inside those conference rooms with closed doors - you are better off not knowing anything about it for the sake of plausible deniability.

4.  The worst case scenario - the meetings are specifically about getting rid of you, while minimizing the impact on the company. We can further subdivide this one according to the underlying causes:

(a)  You are too expensive and the owners, while knowing very well that you worth every penny they pay you, don't think the business can afford you anymore, not even with a 30% base reduction.

(b)  That owner in the first scenario simply cannot deal with your superiority any longer.  He doesn't care how good you are, you've got to go, so that he can forget about you (and he will) and start feeling good about himself again.  I have to say, this one is your own fault – if you needed that job, you should've curbed your attitude.  (Oh boy, don't I know how incredibly difficult that is!)       

Oh yeah, I almost forgot!  There is a possibility of a fifth scenario (also straight from my experience with rampant business owners): If the boss starts having frequent (and kind of longish) meetings behind closed doors not with other execs or third-party relations, but with his secretary, you probably need to read my post When Your Boss's Secretary Becomes His Girlfriend, written 2.5 years ago.  It is, by the way, one of The Frustrated CFO's Top 5 most popular posts to date.  So, I know that this particular scenario is very common. 

While the reasons for the closed doors vary, your course of action is limited two just two options: (a) suck it up and continue doing your job for the sake of your paycheck, or (b) look for another job and, if you get lucky (real tough for CFOs nowadays),  get out.  Take my advice: don't lower yourself to passive-aggressive stance, or seek an open confrontation with the owners, or attempt to "ask around."  You will not achieve anything this away and it will only make you feel worse.  

The American Revival of Failed Soviet Labor Constructs


Let mSoviet-poster1e admit right off the bat that Matthew Shaer's article The Boss Stops Here in the June 24th issue of New York magazine has brought my already high level of agitation to a boiling point.  So, if some of my comments appear to be hostile, don't be surprised – you've been warned. 

The article takes up a subject unusual for a life/politics/culture publication - it ventures into the business discipline of organizational management; specifically, a post-modernist pseudo-innovative spectacle of a "non-hierarchical workplace."  Fancy verbage and incorrectly-used business terminology aside, Shaer focuses on a few companies, whose owners, to put it simply, replaced management leadership with the collective's (as in all employees) show of hands. 

At Menlo Innovations (one of the companies in focus, a software developer), for example, "there are no bosses … and no middle managers."  Instead, "every morning, the entire staff circles up to discuss" the distribution of assignments." Valve Corporation (a video-game company) operates as a network of self-governing teams, with employees choosing at random which team to join and when to switch to a new one.  In all the companies mentioned in the articles, the projects' progress reviews are the collective exercises as well. Obscenely, personal achievement means nothing, because it's the whole team that gets evaluated: the brilliant guy who comes up with incredible solutions at lightning speed gets no recognition and his mediocre team members, who spend weeks gnawing at their portions of work, get to share in his professional triumphs. 

Now, get ready for it! At Menlo et al, hirings, promotions, layoffs, and firings are handled by a committee.  At W.L. Gore & Associates, once a year all (!!!) "employees gather to rank their colleagues based on their contributions to the overall success of the company.  Those rankings are used by a separate committee of associates to determine pay raises or cuts."  The article omits the exploration of how such committees are elected and/or appointed.     

As far as I am concerned, all of this is nothing if not yet more evidence of the incredible ignorance I bring up so frequently.  Most people learn so little about World History, they are not capable of recognizing that there is nothing new about these "experiments."  It has all been done before: In the Soviet Union and other countries of the former Eastern Bloc everything was decided by various committees, starting with the ones in every single place of work and residence through the different medium levels all the way up to the Central Committee of the Communist Party!

Moreover, all these team-work models have already been tested (and failed) in the Soviet Union.  Such groups were given a very special name - they called them Brigades of Communist Labor.  The main purpose of these constructs was to eradicate any form of individualism – intellectual, political, emotional, spiritual.      

Throughout the article, the author kept making an unfortunately confused mistake by calling these unformed socialistic blobs of companies "flat structures."  That just fucking hurt me!  A flat organizational structure is a typical attribute of a small business.  But instead of eliminating the leadership and reducing everyone to some equalizing average, it actually elevates each employee to the level of a multi-functional manager.  Every person handles a multitude of tasks covering entire sectors of the value chain.  Moreover, they do that with little supervision and only general guidelines from senior and executive management.  This is how they achieve, what I call, "career growth in the same chair," raising themselves from one level of expertise to another.  And I'm not talking about mom-and-pop candy shops here – this is how $50-$750 million companies are ran by 10-20 hard-working people.

I have been working in such environments my entire career.  So, it was laughable to me that the article made a big deal about companies with employees setting up their own schedules.  You must be kidding me! Who in a small, or even a mid-size company has got the time to set up their subordinates' schedules!

The author praises some Fortune 1000 companies for trying to fix their management problems through workplace decentralization.  Look, I don't give a flying fuck whether a Fortune 1000, or any large company, recognizes that there is something wrong with it and takes a stab at fixing itself through decentralization and "flattening."   It's not enough to make them more efficient, because, to paraphrase Woody Allen: You know what's wrong with them?  Everything.  Companies are not supposed to be that big – break them up into small entities and the flat structures will come naturally (see above).                

While reading the article I couldn't help but notice that in these companies only functions related to daily operations, general administration, and HR management (much despised and largely ignored by many entrepreneurs) get "delegated" to the workforce masses.  The labor is not actually involved in the decision-making responsible for the strategic development and the survival of the company: which commercial directions to pursue, which projects to undertake, which clients to accept, where to procure the financial resources, etc.  It is so evident that Matthew Shaer had to acknowledge that "overseeing strategy, the long-term vision of Menlo as a whole, still falls" to the two owners, who "also serve as representatives of Menlo at scads of management and business conferences," both in the US and overseas.  Nobody else gets to go.

What can I say?  This is the precise recipe of building the absolute power used by the Soviet leaders (and still employed by their contemporary successors): You let the hoi polloi pretend that they are the "power," delegate to the "collective" the most unpleasant tasks of dealing with each other, but leave yourself with the rights for the real leadership, for the ultimate decisions.  And guess what?  In that top-of-the-Olympus realm, there is nobody who can challenge you, because you got rid of all qualified personnel aka managerial talents.  In Russia, they first called them the enemies of the people and then "cleanse" them out, if you know what I mean.  

I found it very emblematic that the owners of Menlo Innovations consider Thomas Edison a "patron saint" of the company and keep his bust in the middle of their open-style working space.  That same Thomas Edison who hired a very talented engineer named Nicholai Tesla and stole all of Tesla's ideas, patenting them in his own name.  That Thomas Edison who later staged public electrocutions of puppies and other small animals in his attempt to discredit the viable Westinghouse/Tesla high-voltage system, in order to eliminate the competition. 

And "the lady doth protest too much": Menlo employees' readily provided self-convincing quotes insisting that their "self-management" meetings keep the morale high (What about that guy who donated his outstanding one-of-a-kind solution to his team?) and make them feel that they are working toward a common goal.  Oy! Hurts again!  I have always propagated that creating in employees the sense of being important, of being a part of the bigger picture is a key to the successful management of human assets.  But it's not achieved through making everyone into an unrecognizable little screw in a homogeneous pile.  It's done by raising the awareness of each and everyone's crucial value and singular necessity for the company's survival.  

In reality, just as it happened in the Soviet Union, all these collective decisions and committees' resolutions, usually lead to dilettantism.  These people may be great designers and coders, but what the fuck do they know about business administration and organizational development.  In fact, most of the high tech pros I've ever worked with were incredibly disorganized individuals, intellectually far removed from any administrative skills.

Another false agenda the poor schmucks who work for these "organizational innovators" subconsciously force themselves to accept is what I would define as the "evolution of rewards pretense."  Since pre-historic times to these sad days, only three main factors have been stimulating people to work hard: the adequate merit-based pay, the recognition of achievements through promotion (not just title-assignment, but the real elevation of responsibilities), and the self-realization aka pride in your own professionalism. 

When there is no middle or senior management, the promotions are out as well.  It's not like you are going to take over an Owner's position.  Turns out (here comes the funny part) that material stimuli are "irrelevant" as well.  There is a quote in the article from one of the developers at DreamHost, who explicitly says: "Twenty years ago, it was about higher pay.  Now it's more about finding your work meaningful and interesting."  Well now, is that why you are ogling Mark Zuckerberg's photos in Forbes and invest your 401k pennies into high-risk stocks?  And don't deny it, because I know you do.   But hell, of course money is "not important."  What else are they going to say?  The decent jobs are scarce and the candidates are a plenty.  So many young people went into coding and computer engineering; they are literally a dime a dozen.  Those who get employed consider themselves lucky, and if you tell them to drink that "teamwork" and "money's not important" Kool-Aid, they will.      

But the aspects that make this whole collective/committees bullshit especially inconceivable to me have to do with the very core of the business management, i.e. the behavioral science, the human nature itself.  Did these business owners somehow develop some sort of a new breed of people, the kind that's inherently free of the evolutionary pre-built competitive instincts?  Or maybe they psychoprofile every single employee and keep only those who are uncommonly fair and just, or, more likely, idiotically indifferent?  

Incredibly, like all fanatics, these commy-following bosses manage to fool not only their employees, but themselves as well.  Let me remind my readers that the greatest incentive for all organizational restructurings is profitability.  I have no doubt that the private owners of the businesses highlighted in the article are under the impression that by eliminating the key decision-makers they significantly increase their profits.  Let's face it: even in the current market, high-quality execs still make relatively decent salaries.  Unfortunately, these owners, marred by their own special brand of entrepreneurial ignorance, are unable to see the big picture: while their worker-bees spend unnecessary long hours on trying to inexpertly debate the organizational issues, they are not attending to their primary responsibilities, e.g. ACTUALLY WORKING!!!  Talking about real losses! 

The article's author describes one of these long meetings, which started at 11 am and went until 2 pm (!), "and by the midway mark, the proceedings were moving a little more slowly, with more exasperated sighs, or slight but conspicuous head shakes, and sometimes everyone seemed to be talking simultaneously, in one big warbly squawk."  But don't worry.  There is always the pressure-relieving tool introduced at Menlo a few years ago, "walkies" – ten-minute group walks around the block. 

As my readers know, I am a small-business crusader, who believes that giant corporations structured around towering hierarchies of management are cancerous.  At the same time, people of extremes and ideological fanatics (and don't be fooled: this is exactly what we are dealing with here) always terrify me, regardless of whether their views are "progressive" or "reactionary."  Why does everything always have to be so categorical: either a pyramid of useless bosses, or no bosses at all?  Why can't their be a middle ground: a handful of well-qualified key decision makers whose expertise allows them to make high-priority decisions quickly, without slowing the business down, while all functional decisions are left to the employees? 

I'll tell you why: Because that's a "small business" model.  Unfortunately, these "innovative" owners don't want to remain small and work hard to survive.  Notice that most of them are high-tech.  They want to grow big as fast as possible and sell themselves either to a larger competitor or a private equity firm, or (oh, the sweet dream!) make billions by going public.  Meanwhile, just like the Soviet Commies before them, they pretend to be "just and fair" by "empowering" their "collectives," only to completely abandon and betray them in that bright future.  I fucking hate this phony bullshit!                      

Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism


Plagiarism – the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one’s own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another.

            OED, Vol. 11: 947

As OED’s definitions go, this one is pretty straightforward: you create something, another person passes it as his own – that’s wrong.  It is also linguistically polite.  Authors unrestricted by the structural conventions of dictionaries, can be more blunt about it. Late Alexander Lindey, a copyright attorney and author, in his 1951 Plagiarism and Originality wrote: “Plagiarism is literary – or artistic or musical – theft.”

Note that OED’s definition includes both
ideas and their expressions.  Legally, however, only actual products are protected.  The United States Copyright Office clearly states: 

“Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something.  You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in you description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in written or artistic work.”

To simplify: Copying Van Gogh’s Sunflowers to a stroke and passing it as your own work is illegal, but producing endless still-lifes of vases with flowers in Van Gogh’s style is absolutely OK.  By the same token, reproducing somebody’s words verbatim without giving a proper citation is plagiarism, but recasting somebody’s original idea with your own words, details, and attributes cannot be legally challenged.

Generally speaking, the intention behind the exclusion of ideas from the copyright protection is founded in the possibility of several people coming up with the same thought at the same time.  This indeed happens from time to time.  However, more frequently than not, the law, as it stands right now, makes what I call an unpunishable plagiarism an okay thing.   

Of course, it is infrequent that someone copies a painting, or steals a score from another musician’s computer.  Actions like that can lead to criminal and/or civil law suits.  From time to time, we hear about people being expelled from schools or lose their jobs and professional creditability on account of plagiarism.

Sometimes, such allegations are unfounded and cleverly used to mar the innocent competition.  The fabulous Alan Rickman, whose character in the Broadway production of Theresa Rebeck’s Seminar became a victim of such a scam, moaned with all the heart-wrenching pain his ample talent was capable to deliver: “Oh, to be accused of such a thing…”  For him it’s the worst possible shame.  A rare man!  

However, when it comes to original ideas, only individual morals stand between one person’s precious imaginative jewel and another person’s grabby hand.  Unfortunately, morality being what it is in the present time, theft of the original ideas is far more common than pickpocketing and purse snatching.  As originality becomes more and more of a deficit, the stealing of it becomes more and more pervasive.  I personally don’t care whether it’s legal or not.  To me it’s worse than a theft – it’s an intellectual rape, a snatching of babies born in a torrent of a creative labor. 

In business environments it happens every day.  Those who watch NBC’s popular series Grimm know that the show’s core feature is to give a fairy-tale spin to contemporary life.  In a second season’s episode Nameless, a video game company celebrates the development of a groundbreaking code.  Everyone involved in the programming of this extraordinary algorithm stands to make millions.  As it turns out, however, none of the people taking credit for it had actually authored the breakthrough idea.  It was appropriated by the team leader from a tech guy who came to reboot her system and offered the brilliant solution in exchange for a date.  Not only that she had no qualms about accepting the praise and the rewards, she wasn’t planning to keep the date promise either.  She didn’t even remember the guys name.

Whether in business or arts, the worst idea thieves are your peers, especially those who work with you.  Trust me, I know it first-hand.  One such incident occurred during my time as a high-tech CFO.  We were preparing for a teleconference with our venture-capital investors.  My fellow board member, the VP of Marketing, strolled into my office and asked for my opinion about the topics to be discussed.  You know, at the time the Internet companies were marked by a sense of democracy and camaraderie.  So, I let my guard down and laid out my thoughts.  All these years later, I still remember the shock I felt, when this guy took the lead of the meeting and repeated everything I told him verbatim, without giving me any credit, of course.      

It goes without saying that the world of arts and entertainment is a fucking snake pit that lives by the motto “Everybody steals.”  It’s pretty much an every-day practice. 

No matter how many musicians and fans scorned Vanilla Ice’s shameless “re-phrasing” of the Queen/Bowie genius bass riff, “Ice Ice Baby” made millions, was nominated for a Grammy and won the American Music Award.  It only got worse since.  I happened to personally know a human equivalent of a music encyclopedia, and I constantly hear from her: “Wait a minute, I already heard this on…”      

In Woody Allen’s Vicky, Christina, Barcelona Penelope Cruz’s character Maria Elena bluntly states that Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), a commercially successful artist, stole his entire painting style from her.  First, he reluctantly acknowledges that, yes, she was “influential,” and later admits that “maybe he took from her more than he likes to admit.”  Really?  With a hint of sarcasm Maria Elena says: “It’s okay.  We worked side by side for many years, and you adopted my vision of the world as your own.” 

Speaking of movies, it’s impossible to get an unknown writer’s script into a decision-maker’s hands.  99% of studios and production companies do not accept unsolicited (i.e. not represented by an agent) material.  And even if you do get someone to read your script or to hear your pitch, the first thing you will need to do is to sign a legal document promising that you will never-ever sue that entity for stealing your idea.  Why?  Because, if they don’t like the script but like the idea, they will most definitely steal it.

There is this tiny (in terms of viewership – $342K gross) Craig Lucas’s movie called The Dying Gaul (2005).  It is a feeble attempt to expose Hollywood’s perversity and corruption.   In spite of the presence of indy VIP’s Campbell Scott, Patricia Clarkson, and Peter Sarsgaard, whose pull must be responsible for a $4 million budget, the movie is an unremarkable failure.  (Let’s be honest, ever since Robert Altman’s The Player (1992), you really need something extraordinary up your sleeve to embark on this theme.)  Yet, the film has one valuable tidbit of a real truth in it: When the main character refuses to change his script from a tragic gay love story into a heterosexual romance, the big-time producer with a $1 million check in his hand warns, “If you refuse, you will walk out of here with nothing, and I will give your story to someone else to rewrite.” 

But don’t think that only the unknown writers fall victims to Tinseltown’s shameless pilfering of ingenuity.  The moment I saw a poster for Night in the Museum, I had a bizarre thought that Ben Stiller somehow managed to convince Gore Vidal to lend the movie a brilliant plot device from his novel The Smithsonian Institution (1998) .  You see, it was Vidal who made the historical characters come to life, most notably Teddy Roosevelt (but not dinosaurs).  Apparently, I was not the only one who noticed the uncanny similarity: the great writer himself openly spoke about it in various media.  Of course, he wasn’t going to attempt any legal action – he’s been around the block way too many times (his first publication is dated 1946 and his oeuvre includes 14 screenplays).  

Some occurrences of unpunishable plagiarism are simply ridiculous.  In 2007, Joe Swanberg (another semi-known indy writer/director) made a practically unseen ($23K gross) movie called Hannah Takes the Stairs:  Hannah (Greta Gerwig), a recent college graduate, is an intern and an aspiring writer, who is cruising from a relationship to  relationship, trying to find her direction in life.  Hmm… Wait a minute… Doesn’t this Hannah live on HBO now? Wasn’t she shoved into everyone’s face by the hipster media for the past 18 months or so? Wasn’t she supposed to be an alter ego of her “oh-so-original” creator, a “genius” on the list of “100 Most Influential People,” the one whose name I promised not to mention in my posts anymore? A coincidence?  Nope.  If anyone did see the 2007 movie, it would be this HBO’s you-know-who.  After all, she is a friend and a collaborator (Nobody Walks) of Ry Russo-Young, who co-starred in Hannah Takes the Stairs.

Speaking of those Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, it is my firm opinion that the biggest scrounger in fictional writing ever is J.K. Rowling.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Harry Potter, but that woman sponged her material off everything she ever read (granted, she is a very well-read person). Let’s not drown ourselves in the boundless sea of magical names representing wizardly attributes: Lupin = wolf (Latin); Sirius = dog (Latin via Greek); Severus = serious, strict (Latin); Dumbledore = stream of gold (a combination of “dumble” – a Nottinghamshire local for a forested stream, and French “d’Or”), etc., etc., etc., etc. Instead, I’d like to point out a few very specific items:

  • Let me remind you that in 1961 Roald Dahl wrote a very popular book James and the Giant Peach about an orphan boy James Henry Trotter (Harry James Potter, anyone?!), whose loving parents were destroyed by a brutal rhino and who is forced to live with cruel aunts until a magician helps him to get out.
  • In Gaudy Night Dorothy Sayers’s lead character Harriet Vane describes her alma mater, Oxford’s Shrewsbury College, as an incredibly confusing place with seemingly moving stairs. 
  • During Victorian times, British citizens started depositing their money in the banks in increasing numbers.  Funny, they developed a slang term for the sovereigns the deposited – they called them “goblins.” 

Actually, my list is so long, I can write another book.  How about “Harry Potter Genesis, Or Did J.K. Rowling Come Up With Any Original Ideas?”

Obviously, I am very apprehensive about the usurping tendencies all around us.  I know talented young people bursting with artistic ideas. Extraordinary pearls of originality simply roll off their tongues.  It’s painful to admit it, but instead of enjoying their creativity, I behave like a robotic warning machine: “Keep it to yourself! Don’t share it with anybody!  Stop dropping your pearls publicly!  Why did you post that brilliant thing on fucking facebook?!”  I know it makes me sound like a paranoid maniac (and it makes me feel real shitty), but what else can I do to protect them?  Their artistic expressions are incredibly unique.  Their verbiage is so catchy, their “friends” not only repeat it, but have the gall to claim it for themselves.   

How can we possibly control this?  How can we safeguard the originality? We can’t: There is no legal way and most humans lost any shreds of shame a long time ago.  The only way to protect your ideas is to constantly convert them into products, so that you can stake your ownership via the copyright.  And even then, as examples above show, you are not secured from various brands of scavengers.            

Quote of the Week: “Mad Men” Peggy Olson Describes Your Common Workplace Environment


Peggy+season1"I don't understand… I tried to do my job, I follow the rules; and people hate me.  Innocent people get hurt and other people, people who are not good, get to walk around doing whatever they want.  It's not fair!"

            Season 1, Episode 12

            Nixon vs. Kennedy

Written by Lisa Albert, Andre & Maria Jacquemetton