Not only has Katie MacAlister written what sounds like the worst Steampunk novel ever -- romance/chick-lit with a Steampunk veneer -- she has also stolen a photograph by Tarilyn Quinn of rather more genuine Steampunk author G.D. Falksen to use as the basis for her hero in a YouTube promotional video.
The video is here, at least for the moment:
I can't believe Penguin is going to be all that thrilled about being party to theft, so it may not be up long. Compare with the photo here.
Even aside from the whole copyright-what-copyright? angle, listening to the breathless narration makes me choke with laughter:
A whirlwind romance that just may cause their airship to combust and ignite in a passion that will forever change the world as she knows it
'Cause, y'know, the Hindenburg disaster is exactly what you want to think about in a moment of passion.
Judging from the promo, this might actually be worse than SteamyPunk, though I'm not willing to sacrifice either time or money enough to find out for myself.
(And a note to Ms. MacAlister: when I think of "igniting passion" and "incredible
gadgetry," a punked-up wristwatch is not the first thing that comes to
mind.)
(1/30/10 Edited to add: The video has now been pulled; no surprise. A screencap is at left; click to enlarge. A copy of the video has been posted with a record of the multiple thefts of artistic property -- background, watches, etc. -- here. The author blames it all on the video production company, MyNextDemo, which is supposedly a professional producer. One has to wonder how many other images they've stolen for their other videos. You can see MacAlister's failure to apologize or accept any responsibility in the comments here.)
I just watched this 15-20 minutes ago, G.D. Falksen had posted it on Twitter. The narration is SO incredibly bad, that -- when paired with the image theft -- I had a hard time believing it was real. It feels like a horrible joke, a bad parody of book trailers.
That said, I'm really having a hard time grasping the idea of book trailers. Books are a written medium. Trailers are for visual media. The very lack of visual-ness leads to these ridiculous photo montages.
Also, I would not be at all surprised if the punked-up wristwatch was also a stolen image.
Posted by: AJ | January 27, 2010 at 10:46 PM
Wait! I just heard the name of the heroine. Don't you dare use my name, you two-bit HACK. Now I'm grumpy. I had the misfortune to read a romance novel by her, and it was truly, truly, truly dreadful.
Posted by: O. | January 27, 2010 at 11:18 PM
You can tell this is just an attempt to be trendy by cashing in on Steampunk. It sounds hilariously bad.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 28, 2010 at 06:44 AM
Meanwhile, onboard the airship Behindenburg...
Posted by: Serge | January 28, 2010 at 09:29 AM
AJ... "...I'm really having a hard time grasping the idea of book trailers..."
I doubt it's really worth the effort & cost, which could probably be better spent with old-fashionned ads in the likes of Locus and Asimov's. It makes sense for a TV show to put out an ad in a magazine because people who read usually also watch TV. (Yes, there are some exceptions, as people who show up here know.) But there aren't enough people who watch TV, or who go to the movies, who also read. Finally, unless a person already knows about the book thru an ad, how are they going to come across the ad on YouTube?
Posted by: Serge | January 28, 2010 at 01:09 PM
Serge, I think you're overestimating the cost, especially for a trailer made entirely of "found" visuals. (I'm not counting potential legal costs, obviously.) And once it's together, there's the hope of a video going viral, which gives you wide distribution. Granted, that's like hoping for a lottery win, but you never know; and it needn't go viral for good reasons to get good distribution. We're up to at least five (presumably reading) viewers here, after all.
Posted by: David Wald | January 28, 2010 at 02:02 PM
And that ripped off puppy is already stripped from You Tube. Guess someone got an earful....
Posted by: Larisa | January 28, 2010 at 02:39 PM
David Wald... True, especially if one has access to public-domain material, or if we ask the owner for their permission. Hmmm... It might actually be a fun exercise.
Posted by: Serge | January 28, 2010 at 02:45 PM
Larisa... Especially if this got to her Penguin editor.
Posted by: Serge | January 28, 2010 at 02:48 PM
And now, for something completely different, "The Montgolfier Brothers in Love".
Posted by: Serge | January 28, 2010 at 02:48 PM
I just edited this post to reflect the recent goings-on: the video has been pulled. The author has claimed she knew nothing, but has notably failed to, oh, apologize or take any responsibility or anything. I'm not impressed. More stolen images in the video have been traced and a version with annotations of the thefts has been posted for the record. There's now a link to that above.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM
Susan... The author (...) has notably failed to, oh, apologize or take any responsibility or anything.
Reminds me of Bush Jr.
By the way, are you thinking of actually reading the book so that you can further trash and chastise the author? It is a dirty job, but someone has got to do it. On the other hand, life is too short, and there are plenty of good stories awaiting our peepers & brains.
Posted by: Serge | January 30, 2010 at 11:24 AM
Serge:
I was thinking the same thing - just like our ex-pres.
I don't plan to get the book, no. I've no desire to give the author a dime, and life is, as you say, too short. I have lots of good books to read already.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 30, 2010 at 02:31 PM