I think the translated letters/articles pretty much speak for themselves, but I’ll try and contextualize this as it goes along . . . Here’s the basic setup: Zvaigzne ABC decided to publish an anthology of contemporary Latvian writers as part of its “School Library” series. So far, so good. (Maybe. Pay attention to that “School Library” tag.) But in a traditional dick publishing move, they didn’t treat these authors with any sort of respect and totally screwed with their work.

Here’s a post by Inga 沤olude, which was the first piece to point out some of the issues:

Kilbloka wasn糖心传媒檛 around when shame was being doled out. After Vija Kilbloka [Ed. Note: Kilbloka is the Chairman of Zvaigzne ABC] dug herself a hole by saying Latvian literature has no influence, no good authors, no good works, and that it糖心传媒檚 no surprise no one糖心传媒檚 buying books, after her lovely compliments, which insofar as I understand are also addressed toward me, today I received a notice from the Zvaigzne ABC publishing house stating one of my stories was to be included in the 糖心传媒淪chool Library糖心传媒� series anthology Newest Latvian Short Stories. Fantastic! But:

1) No one asked me if I wanted my story to be included. No one even told me about it. And the question of whether or not it糖心传媒檚 ethical for them to send me this kind of email after some Prada-clad Satan has doused me in sewage? I have to overlook all of that because I糖心传媒檓 some kind of 脺bermensch?

2) There is neither a contract, nor information on the royalties I糖心传媒檇 receive for the publication. It could be because they don糖心传媒檛 have to inform or pay authors if the book is being published for educational purposes. Excuse me?! What??? Vija Kilbloka糖心传媒檚 office publishes this book of contemporary literature, makes a profit off it, but I get nothing? Why? Tell me糖心传媒攚hy?

3) My story, which was published in my short story collection Mierin膩jums 膧dama kokam by Dienas Gr膩mata in 2010, was attached to the email. The story had been 糖心传媒渃orrected糖心传媒� by the work elves at Zvaigzne ABC, and the accompanying letter read: 糖心传媒淐orrections I糖心传媒檇 like to make to the text are marked in blue; these you can approve of or not, and you can include notes as to why you糖心传媒檇 like to leave the respective section as is. The spots marked in red are things I糖心传媒檝e edited or would like to change, but haven糖心传媒檛 decided on the best version prior to hearing back from you.糖心传媒� [emphasis mine] Wait. I糖心传媒檓 sorry. I have to explain to you why I don糖心传媒檛 want to change certain spots in my text??? Did gravity, all sane logic, etc., just cease to function tonight? I don糖心传媒檛 have to explain myself to anyone! I糖心传媒檝e written my version, the only version, and never before have I heard that I have to provide some outsider with better versions to choose from.

I糖心传媒檇 like to call the attention of the Latvian Authors糖心传媒� Society AKKA/LAA and other institutions that develop incomplete laws and regulations to this situation and the issues related to authorship, copyright, and royalties, because appears that these concepts don糖心传媒檛 exist in this specific case and can simply be ignored.

This kind of thing always pisses me off, whether it’s from a Latvian publisher, or one closer to home. And it extra pisses me off when there are no consequences . . . when publishers take advantage of some system to benefit themselves at the expense of the writers/translators who actually generate the value in this relationship . . . I carry grudges about this sort of thing for years.

In this particular case, thirteen of the best Latvian writers of our time decided to sign a petition. Here’s a news story about it from Kulturasdiena.lv:

Writers deny Zvaigzne ABC permission to publish their works in anthology of short stories

糖心传媒�. . . Taking into consideration the approach and (non)collaboration in the preparation of the anthology, we do not consent to having our stories used by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology of new short stories,糖心传媒� several well-known Latvian literati announced on Kulturasdiena.lv.

The statement, which was signed by Inga 沤olude, Andra Neiburga, J膩nis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Rep拧e, Maira Asare, Inga 膧bele, Pauls Bankovskis, M膩ris B膿rzi艈拧, Dace Ruk拧膩ne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdi艈拧, voices the authors糖心传媒� frustrations regarding the deceitful attitude of publishing house Zvaigzne ABC while preparing its Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology. In the letter, the authors also state they do not consent to having their works published in the anthology.

The following is a reprint of the statement released by the authors.

The preparation of a certain book has caused numerous whirlwinds of discussion over the past few days. As well as a spattering of emotions, impassioned statements, and anonymity (see Inga 沤oludes article and, particularly, the comments thread below it).

The preparation of Zvaigzne ABC糖心传媒檚 Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology reflects wonderfully their unacceptable and deceitful approach. Dismissing the ability of Latvian writers to produce commercially successful works and simultaneously putting together an anthology of the newest short stories (which, according to Zvaigzne ABC Board Chairman Vija Kilbloka糖心传媒檚 opinion on contemporary Latvian literature, will most likely be a commercial flop) is strange, to say the least.

And yet, why spit in the well from which we draw our water糖心传媒攊t糖心传媒檚 all the same, whether we drink it or use it to water our gardens. Shouldn糖心传媒檛 we be spitting only in the Coca-Cola and Fanta wells, which have been drilled, branded, and sent into the global market by someone else? The situation in Latvia is such that, in the creation stages of a book, it糖心传媒檚 much easier to let authors, other publishers, book editors, and proof-readers for original works pick themselves off, and watch from the sidelines to see which creative shrubs die off, which ones grow lush, and which ones yield the sweetest fruits. And then secretly pluck them and stash them in your own basket.

Does a status as a potential commercial flop justify the publisher糖心传媒檚 actions toward the authors and texts to be included in their anthology? It糖心传媒檚 possible this is a particular publishing business know-how move糖心传媒攖o kick off production by weeding through the texts, making corrections in blue and red, and then informing the authors thereof as pure fact, instead of entering into agreement with the authors on using their works, discussing respective terms, etc. A number of the authors whose stories are set to be included in the potential collection haven糖心传媒檛 even been notified. It糖心传媒檚 hard to imagine that communication would be such a big problem, especially in this digital age where everyone is just a few clicks away糖心传媒擣acebook, Draugiem.lv, Twitter.

Maybe the 糖心传媒渒now-how糖心传媒� is Section 19 of the Copyright Law, which states the permissible uses of a work without the author糖心传媒檚 consent or without remuneration for the purposes of educational or research materials. And the magic words are 糖心传媒淪chool Library糖心传媒� or (in this particular context the sarcastic slogan)糖心传媒斕切拇綔Need a book?糖心传媒� What糖心传媒檚 more, Section 19 also permits the use of a work without consent or remuneration in the cases the work is parodied or caricatured.

True, for some, Latvian literature stops at Ezera, Blaumanis, or Poruks. For others, Latvian literature might only be the forgotten black-and-white portraits of Latvian authors hanging on the wall of some long-forgotten classroom. For others still, Latvian literature has yet to begin. The Latvian film industry has at some time started (or not started) for each of us in a similar manner, as have Latvian theater, classical, and popular music. Opinions and reviews can differ, and that糖心传媒檚 what makes life interesting. But a disregard for something cannot be an argument for high-mindedness.

And so, taking into consideration the approach and (non)collaboration in the preparation of the anthology, we do not consent to having our stories used by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology of new short stories. Additionally, it would be commercially more profitable to delay the publication of an anthology until a time when Latvian writers will have analyzed what readers want, what a book has to be in order for people to buy it, and once writers start to take into consideration the codes necessary for getting people to read.

Signed: Inga 沤olude, Andra Neiburga, J膩nis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Rep拧e, Maira Asare, Inga 膧bele, Pauls Bankovskis, M膩ris B膿rzi艈拧, Dace Ruk拧膩ne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdi艈拧.

What’s worth noting here is this: “Section 19 of the Copyright Law, which states the permissible uses of a work without the author糖心传媒檚 consent or without remuneration for the purposes of educational or research materials.” So to get this straight, this publishing company disses contemporary writers, then uses their stories for free to create a “school anthology” that’s likely to sell pretty well . . . That’s one way to up your profit margins.

Zvaigzne ABC did reply to the petition, agreeing to let these authors back out:

In response to the request of several Latvian authors to exclude their works from the upcoming Zvaigzne ABC anthology Newest Latvian Short Stories, the publishing house Zvaigzne ABC announced to Kulturasdiena.lv that it will respect the authors糖心传媒� wish to not be published in the collection.

As mentioned before, Latvian authors Inga 沤olude, Andra Neiburga, J膩nis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Rep拧e, Maira Asare, Inga 膧bele, Pauls Bankovskis, M膩ris B膿rzi艈拧, Dace Ruk拧膩ne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdi艈拧 signed a letter voicing their frustration regarding the deceitful approach taken by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology on the newest Latvian short stories. The authors also denied their consent to have their stories published, additionally stating that a number of authors whose stories were set to be included in the collection weren糖心传媒檛 even informed thereof.

Zvaigzne ABC representative Vineta Tropi艈a explained that literary critic Guntis Berelis was approached in advance to put together the collection, as well as to write its introduction. The project was launched with authors he had chosen, each author being informed of this fact in writing or by phone. Tropi艈a emphasized that, until this past Friday evening, June 8, the majority of authors had responded positively to the publisher糖心传媒檚 offer. This changed after Inga 沤olude糖心传媒檚 blog post on Kulurasdiena.lv, and a few others only reacted Monday, June 11.

Tropi艈a went on to say that, in the specific case of Inga 沤olude糖心传媒檚 short story, there were nine places in the text with suggested changes: a few punctuation errors, as well as a suggestion to italicize colloquialisms and profanity. 糖心传媒淔or example, the word 辫颈锄模别肠, which we chose not to italicize this time per the author糖心传媒檚 request.糖心传媒� Other authors were offered similar suggestions of this nature. 糖心传媒淲e糖心传媒檇 like to point out that we purposely used the words 糖心传媒榦ffered suggestions糖心传媒�, since the editor invited the authors to come in and discuss the best possible solutions,糖心传媒� Tropi艈a explained. She also noted that Zvaigzne ABC has a long-standing cooperation with Latvian Authors糖心传媒� Society AKKA/LAA, from whom the publisher purchases the license. AKKA/LAA is also in charge of handling the respective distribution of royalties for the authors.

The Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology is to be published for the new series 糖心传媒淪chool Library糖心传媒�, which continues the tradition of the already popular series 糖心传媒淣eed a Book?糖心传媒� and is intended for schoolchildren. There are already three works published within the 糖心传媒淪chool Library糖心传媒� series: Reg墨na Ezera糖心传媒檚 Zemdegas, Illona Leimane糖心传媒檚 Vilka膷u mantiniece, and Knuts Skujenieks糖心传媒檚 poetry anthology.

The “editing” thing is always a bit touchy, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. To me, using these works without remuneration for the authors is just totally wrong. If only publishing companies had better morals . . .

There are more questions to ask about this—like, how many authors were they planning on including? Thirteen backing out sounds pretty damn significant—and other observations to make about the Latvian publishing world as a whole, but I’ll leave that to Kaija.