Curious to know how he describes his writing factory.

You'll be reading a lot more about his golf games than his writing factory. Not that I want to be a spoiler or anything, since you haven't read it yet, but -- I think he spent maybe less than 2 pages on his writing factory. Perhaps it was less than 1 page -- out of 300+ pages. I will post one review of his book that I read.

I happen to have a library copy of the book right now. (I certainly would not buy it.)

If you go into a bookstore that is selling this book, look at pages 249-250 (1 page) which is
the "chapter" titled: "here's to the critics!"

On page 250 he inanely compares his writing factory to creative partnerships - who share royalties on
projects (even though his writers receive no royalties, a fact he does not mention in this book).

The next chapter, titled "the great cowriting mystery solved" attempts to use an advertising technique -
testimonials - to convince both his writers and the public reading this book that all is well in his writing
factory. This goes on from pages 251 to 257.

I could not help but think of the tv show "Fraiser" and the episode where Frasier is asked by Dr. Honey Snow to
write a forward to her new book - but Frasier refuses because the book is so awful. And, Niles says her books are
not just "fluff" -- but "fluff-lite."

That is what it feels like reading these pages about his writing factory: "fluff-lite." Because he makes an inane comparison
and then omits any real details about the deals he makes with writers, and you are basically left knowing nothing.

I don't buy anything by exploitative hacks like him. That's what libraries and ePubs "borrowed from a friend" are for.

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2022, 07:23 AM - Edit history (2)

https://hbr.org/2012/03/james-patterson

Excerpt from above link re his writing factory:

Patterson: "...The job pays well. Everybody likes it. Nobody quits."

Reporter: "It sounds like you’re more boss than colleague?"

Patterson: "I think it’s a combination. I remember at J. Walter Thompson it was a fairly collegial atmosphere, but there was an understanding that we didn’t join you, you joined us. I think it’s the same thing. They’re joining me. I don’t like to use the word 'boss,' even though I don’t think it’s inaccurate....And, as I said, nobody leaves. "

Last edited Sun Jun 12, 2022, 07:38 AM - Edit history (1)

I thought it strange that he insists to the Harvard Business Review:

"Everyone likes it. Nobody quits....Nobody leaves."

And then in his memoir, right after his testimonials about his writing factory, you read this section title:

"nobody moves,
nobody gets hurt"

----------

Well! If you are one of his writers -- who IS scared of him -- then it seems to me you might be hearing him
telling you what sounds to me like: a threat ( "nobody moves, nobody gets hurt" ). I mean he certainly could have
chosen to place this section ANYWHERE ELSE in this convoluted non-linear memoir.

It now seems to me he has promoted two completely different versions of his writing factory.

When you read the Harvard Business Review article I posted above, he is admitting he is the "boss."

Yet, in his new memoir, he is comparing his writing factory and his relationship with those writers to the following creative partnerships on pages 249-250:

"Simon & Garfunkel"
"Lennon & McCartney"...
"Joel & Ethan Cohen"...

Here's how he introduces this list:

"When people bring up my practice of writing with coauthors, they usually aren't thinking nice thoughts. Here's the best defense I've come up with about cowriters."

(And then he offers his list)

I don't think he has given a "best" defense -- or any defense. He is comparing apples and oranges. But for me to think anything different than he thinks, then, according to him: I am not thinking "nice" thoughts.

He is such a jerk. I'm sorry to say that about anyone. But he is.

One reason I like posting here on DU when I feel like saying something is because you never know who is reading the thread. And it occurs to me that perhaps someday a writer from Patterson's writing factory will somehow stumble upon this thread. If so, here is what I would like to say to that person:

You and the other writers in his writing factory are far from being the first group of writers exploited by James Patterson for his own personal gain. Later in this thread I will teach you all about a group of more than 5,000 writers who were exploited by him for his own personal gain - and don't even know he exploited them. But I know. And I will show you what he did to those people and how he benefited from his misconduct.

In addition, I will show you, right now, the public story of one writer he exploited. I read about this writer in the NY Post,. I don't recall seeing any other media outlet disclose her lawsuit. I read the NY Post -- and that's how I learned of this writer.

After you read her story, decide for yourself if James Patterson is in the habit of exploiting writers. And, if you're not sure, wait until later on this thread when I show what he did to 5,000+ other writers. Then you be the judge of whether or not he has a pattern of exploitation against writers..

Here is the one public story of an exploited writer -- which I learned of by reading the NY Post:

Federal lawsuit of Christina Sharpe vs. James Patterson

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b6c7add7b0493477b1f4
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b6c7add7b0493477b1f4]

https://nypost.com/2006/03/26/patterson-stole-my-heart-words/

Excerpt:

PATTERSON STOLE MY HEART & WORDS
By Brad Hamilton
March 26, 2006 5:00am

He’s accused of acting like a villain from one of his best sellers.

James Patterson’s ex-lover claims the scribe was a callous cad who stole her ideas, character names and even turns of phrase – then dumped her after saying they’d marry.

Christina Sharp sued for $5 million in Manhattan federal court in 2003 but dropped her case last year. She says she ran out of money to pay her lawyers....

“He’s a thief,” Sharp said.

“He copies the material he’s reading, taking the best parts. But no one wants to see him exposed. He makes too much money for too many people.”

Sharp says that shortly after they started dating, Patterson asked for her help ...

What she didn’t realize, she claims, was that he was secretly poaching ideas and phrases from her letters and from her own novel, based on her life.

Patterson had promised to help get her book published, but then used the material – family stories, descriptions of the horse farm where she grew up, skiing trips – for several of his best sellers, she says.

....Patterson, now fighting a second suit by a different woman who claims he stole her work for his Christmas book, “santaKid,” admits in court papers that he encouraged Sharp to write a novel about her experiences, including their romance. ...

Just in case you were wondering - Patterson never mentions in his new memoir that he's been sued in federal court by a writer.

https://www.authorsguild.org/join/

https://nwu.org/issues-we-care-about/writers-pay/

I was thinking more about this.

I will bet these writers have written contracts that are illegal.

The contracts are for life.

The writers are not allowed to show these contracts to anyone or speak of these contracts.

And when James Patterson dies, his son Jack, a banker, will be the executor and / or trustee of James Patterson's
estate -- and the contracts continue beyond James Patterson's death. Something like that.

The royalty money that should be going to these writers but does not go to these writers is going somewhere else,
not just to James Patterson.

Part of the money is being used for the purpose of funding political parties. Here in this country and other countries.
Something like that is happening.

And a lot of money laundering is going on, unbeknownst to the writers in his writers factory.

None of this would surprise me in the least. Though it would come as a shock to the American people.

Something like this is going on, is my belief. The only way to stop it is to stop buying his books.

I must say: I was very very happy to see such a low-key almost muted roll-out of this memoir in a bookstore.

Earlier the bookseller there told me I would find his new memoir on the "New Books" section - but it was not there.
Other books, by other writers, were there - but not this memoir.

I expected to see this new memoir in the windows, like other books i have seen in the windows of this bookstore with
his name as the author in big letters.

But this memoir was not in the window, either.

I was so happy to see this: no book in the window, no book on the new books section.
Instead - there were other writers, other books.

And, not many of his books placed on the shelf. More books of other writers were on the shelf.

Finally, not many people buying it is what it seemed to me, as I returned to the bookstore several times.

All in all - maybe the revolution against his tyranny has already begun. I certainly hope so.

That would make him look bad, and he doesn't do that.

Haven't read anything by him in over 20 years.

puts his name on anyone's book.

No one could be that prolific, even if a typical 400 page Patterson has about 250 actual printed pages. We used to buy everything, but now it’s just the Cross and Women’s Murder Club books.

Since he does not really write "sentences" as he admits in his memoir, I don't think he is a writer of these
books written by others. He is more like a publisher of books. And exploiting writers for his owner personal gain,
as I have read elsewhere these writers receive $0 in royalties. They are paid a flat-fee, which in relation to the sales,
amounts to a very very small amount. It's sort of Hollywood when actors were exploited, before SAG and AFTRA (the unions for talent) came along, is what it seems to me.

I am somewhat surprised these writers allow themselves to be exploited as they do.
I am guessing they are all really very afraid of him. Just my guess. I do not know any of the writers,
although I have communicated via email with one of them. It was clear to me he was afraid. I don't
even know why he wrote back to me.

This review on "Good Reads" is the review I agree with about this memoir: "crap, about crap."
------------
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/4596336354?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=2

James Patterson by James Patterson: The Stories of My Life
by James Patterson (Goodreads Author)

4788151
John Shaw's review
Mar 08, 2022

did not like it

crap, about crap.
----------------

Alexandre Dumas, pere, had a writing factory of scribes. He'd come up with a detailed outline of the book, character sketches, and etc. Probably had a style guide they had to follow as well. He'd then dole out to the poor slaves the various portions of the book to write. I guess someone did a big read through to find inconsistencies and errors.

And that's how Dumas wrote most of Dumas. He got the acclaim and riches. The peons got slave wages.

Same thing Patterson is doing.

Before becoming a novelist, Dumas was very successful at writing plays - he had already made a name for himself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Dumas

Dumas began writing articles for magazines and plays for the theatre. As an adult, he used his slave grandmother's surname of Dumas, as his father had done as an adult.[15] His first play, Henry III and His Court, produced in 1829 when he was 27 years old, met with acclaim. The next year, his second play, Christine, was equally popular. These successes gave him sufficient income to write full-time.


...After writing additional successful plays, Dumas switched to writing novels. ...From 1839 to 1841, Dumas, with the assistance of several friends, compiled Celebrated Crimes, ...

Dumas depended on numerous assistants and collaborators, of whom Auguste Maquet was the best known. It was not until the late twentieth century that his role was fully understood.[16] Dumas wrote the short novel Georges (1843), which uses ideas and plots later repeated in The Count of Monte Cristo. Maquet took Dumas to court to try to get authorial recognition and a higher rate of payment for his work. He was successful in getting more money, but not a by-line.[16][17]

In other words, Dumas was already a brand name, having made a name for himself in the theater.

Dumas did not, while still having to work, solicit other writers for their work under false pretenses, seek publicity for a scam, and thereby make a name for himself that way, so long as the scam remained unknown.

There are many people in history who have worked with collaborators, Dumas is but one example; Andy Warhol and those he worked with at the Factory is another.

But I am not aware of anyone in history who built their brand by fraud - and then sought out others to work under the fraudulently obtained brand name.

To build a "brand" you have to build an identity:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theyec/2021/03/09/five-components-of-a-strong-brand/

Five Components Of A Strong Brand

In my experience helping clients build brands, I’ve discovered five key components of strong brands. Here’s what they are and how you can build them.

1. Brand Identity

Brand identity is what you often think of when you think of branding....

------------

In my opinion, the 1984 "Write if You Want Work" JWT ad could have instructed consumers to mail their writing to "Human Resources at JWT - Copy Test." Without any mention of James Patterson.

And, "Creative Directors" advertised in the ad -- the Expert Opinion evaluating the consumer's writing (this expert review is the promised benefit all consumers would receive by answering the ad) -- could have been the ones to give interviews to various newspapers and magazines that publicized the ad.

But that didn't happen.

There was actually no Expert Opinion benefit to consumers. You receive a rote read by James Patterson's secretary who opens your mailed envelope, reads your submission, then sends you a rejection letter - because that is what James Patterson told her to do. No one else is reading your entry.

None of those Creative Directors in the New York JWT office were ever named nor interviewed in the press (perhaps because none of them were asked to participate in this scam).

Instead, no matter what position James Patterson held over the years at that agency: his name appeared on the ad. He always gave the interviews to the media, continuously promoting this bait and switch/false ad to the public.

That's HOW he made a NAME for himself.

It was through this scam, highly publicized, by James Patterson, that James Patterson built a media reputation for himself (and his subsequent own brand).

Had this bogus ad not existed, or existed with consumers instructed to send their work to HR instead of James Patterson, then: no brand building for James Patterson. He was a commercial flop of a novelist at this time, with this books selling at the Strand book store in NYC for $1 (one dollar) in the Dollar Bin as of March 1985.

And, in my opinion, the Dollar Bin is where all his subsequent books would have landed, too, had he been able to publish any more books, if it were not for this scam. And then: there would be no other collaborators with him as there are now.

Consequently, James Patterson, in my view, is an anomaly -- and not in a good way. Others have collaborated by hiring help -- but others already had a brand name themselves.

James Patterson, a commercial flop of a novelist (three times, with his first three novels) -- THEN stepped on literally thousands of other writers, stole property from these other writers, and chased the media spotlight while doing so, in order to establish his name in the public eye -- and his subsequent individual brand.

Others like Dumas, Warhol, etc, who collaborate do not initially engage in this type of misconduct to create their individual brand. They have already created their brand name.

Who knew nothing about Dumas. Because I knew all of that about him, already, thanks.

The process is what I was commenting on, and it's essentially the same: A "successful" writer exploiting lesser known writers for his own benefit.

P.S. Regarding my first reply to you: Bear this in mind --

Consider the difference between:

Dumas, a successful playwright, and let's say:

Joe E. Schmo, an advertising copywriter.

Because of the theatre, and his plays, the name "Dumas" is very well known publicly. Theater-goers see the play, read the reviews, and know, the name of the playwright is "Dumas." It's a public fact.


But Joe E. Schmo, laboring as a writer in advertising, gets no such public acclaim. He does not sign the ads he writes. His name does not appear in any program of ads, The people who see his work have no idea that work is HIS work. No one in the public knows the name of the copywriter is Joe E. Schmo.

-----------------

Do you see the difference? Do you see what an uphill climb Joe E. Schmo has in order to turn his copywriting name public?


------------------

This is one of the unique oddities of writing advertising copy: You don't sign the ad. No one in public knows it was you that wrote it - unlike writers who write plays, tv shows, movies, and books, where the public easily sees the credit -- and knows who wrote it (or who is taking credit for writing it),

I don't this Patterson book is actually a "memoir." It reminded me of another book that was supposed to be a memoir,
but turned out not to be - "A Million Pieces" or something was the title.

https://www.nytimes.com › 2006 › 01 › 27 › books › 27oprah.html
[link: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/books/27oprah.html|
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/books/27oprah.html]

Author Is Kicked Out of Oprah Winfrey's Book Club - The New York Times

Jan. 27, 2006. In an extraordinary reversal of her defense of the author whose memoir she catapulted to the top of the best-seller lists, Oprah Winfrey rebuked James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces," on her television show yesterday for lying about his past and portraying the book as a truthful account of his life.

"I feel duped," Ms. Winfrey told Mr. Frey. "But more importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of readers."..
-----------

"...It was a stunning bit of drama that had people throughout the publishing industry glued to their television sets yesterday afternoon.

The confrontation on Ms. Winfrey's show was the culmination of events that began with a report on Jan. 8 by The Smoking Gun, an investigative Web site, that found multiple discrepancies between Mr. Frey's life and his account in the book. Among the site's findings were that Mr. Frey had spent only a few hours in jail, not nearly three months as he had written. ..."

She may be smart about TV and interviewing, but she is beyond gullible about anything outside that.

So Patterson's book, in my view, is really not a memoir at all.

I agree with Oprah's opinion here - that publishers should be fact-checking memoirs.

But it is quite clear to me that no publisher lifted a finger to fact check anything in Patterson's memoir.

Here is Oprah's opinion on the duty of publishers, from above linked article:

...She (Oprah) had harsh words during the broadcast for the publisher, Ms. Talese, who said that neither she nor anyone at Doubleday had investigated the accuracy of Mr. Frey's book. She said the company first learned that parts of the book had been made up when The Smoking Gun published its report, nearly two years after the memoir was first published.

"An author brings his book in and says that it is true, it is accurate, it is his own," Ms. Talese said. "I thought, as a publisher, this is James's memory of the hell he went through and I believed it."

But Ms. Winfrey pointed out that her producers had asked about reports of the book's truth in September, after the Hazelden counselor raised doubts, and that they were reassured by Random House.

"We asked if you, your company, stood behind James's book as a work of nonfiction at the time, and they said absolutely," Ms. Winfrey said. "And they were also asked if their legal department had checked out the book, and they said yes. So in a press release sent out for the book in 2004 by your company, the book was described as brutally honest and an altering look at — at addiction. So how can you say that if you haven't checked it to be sure?"

Ms. Talese replied that while the Random House legal department checks nonfiction books to make sure that no one is defamed or libeled, it does not check the truth of the assertions made in a book.

Ms. Winfrey replied, "Well, that needs to change."...

The reviews I read - except for that one review I really liked on goodreads, saying this book is "crap, about crap" - sound like James Patterson's new memoir is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I disagree with all those reviews. I realize I may have to write my own book to explain why.

I also disagree with what Patterson wrote in this memoir, saying he thinks God will just be so happy to see him.

if there is a Heaven and Hell, and someone is really watching who goes where, I think James Patterson, in the next life, will be told:

"Go to hell. God knows what you really did. How badly you hurt people. And ruined lives. On purpose. Because of your greed."

Just my opinion.

---------------

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)

https://www.libraryjournal.com/review/james-patterson-by-james-patterson-the-stories-of-my-life-1789095

Excerpt:

"...If anyone should be able to write an interesting memoir, it’s Patterson. Unfortunately, he hasn’t. Instead, readers get a string of choppy chapters—many one or two pages long—offering platitudes instead of insight; even his advice on how to write is fatuous.

There’s too much name-dropping (breakfast with Tom Cruise; golfing with President Clinton; Serena Williams bugging him for an autograph), as well as too much self-congratulation, self-promotion, and cheap wisdom in this banal, disappointing book.


VERDICT Given Patterson’s audience, this throwaway memoir will be popular even though it isn’t merited."

Library Journal

Library Journal is an American trade publication for librarians. It was founded in 1876 by Melvil Dewey. It reports news about the library world, emphasizing public libraries, and offers feature articles about aspects of professional practice. It also reviews library-related materials and equipment. Wikipedia
Circulation: 100,000 (2008)
Founder: Frederick Leypoldt
First issue date: 1876
Frequency: 20 per year
ISSN: 0363-0277
Publisher: LexisNexis® Risk Solutions Group, Media Source Inc.
--------------------------
Also see:

https://www.libraryjournal.com/page/About-Us

About Us

In the 140 years since it was created, Library Journal has been inspired by the belief that libraries transform lives, at every stage of life.

We were there to help libraries in the United States begin organizing as a profession, and as the national and global network of libraries took their place in town squares, campus centers, and schools. As libraries have adapted, we have been there all the way--leading the profession forward by identifying trends on the brink of impact, surfacing best practices and innovations to invest in, identifying emerging leaders, sharing important news and perspectives that shape the field, guiding purchasing decisions, acting as an advocate for librarians and libraries--leading the field through the great changes and innovations required to keep libraries strong....

Their review made my day!

This day just keeps getting better.

I couldn't read the entire review, because you need a free trial to do so, but here's what I saw:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/james-patterson-invented-magic-bestseller-formula-life-story/#comment

REVIEW
James Patterson invented a magic bestseller formula – so why is his own life story so… putdownable?

3/5
The Stories of My Life starts off like a thriller but devolves into non-anecdotes about famous friends like Tom Cruise and Donald Trump

By
Jake Kerridge
9 June 2022 • 5:00am

James Patterson’s moreish, easy-on-the-brain thrillers have made him the world’s bestselling author, a favourite even of normally reluctant readers. His new autobiography deploys his customary simple, declarative sentences and very short chapters – a narrative method so seductive that I found myself resenting the mental effort demanded on the very rare occasions when a chapter stretched to four pages. And yet, for all the addictive qualities of his style, his fans may find that this is the first Patterson book they’re able to put down before they’ve finished....

So, I will write a few things on my mind about James Patterson's new memoir, "Stories of My Life."

I would like to not think about his book any longer, so I will try to be brief.

And, frankly, I will not write anywhere near as much as I could write.

Last edited Mon Jun 13, 2022, 01:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Today I read an online article about James Patterson in the New Yorker magazine. Here is the link:

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/06/20/how-james-patterson-became-the-worlds-best-selling-author

This June 13, 2022 article is by Laura Miller, and my comments about this article are not directed at Laura Miller. Here is her byline on the article:

Laura Miller is the author of “The Magician’s Book: A Skeptic’s Adventures in Narnia” and a books
and culture columnist at Slate.

Now, at the end of her piece, Miller quotes Patterson, and she offers her own conclusion, which I thought was a valid conclusion for her to make, based on the facts available to her. This is the end of her piece:

...Patterson admits, “My entire life, I honestly have had no idea who the hell I am. It’s still that way. I look at myself as just another idiot wandering planet Earth with no real idea what makes the world go ’round, no particular identity, just another lost soul.” And this is perhaps the most forlorn aspect of “James Patterson”: that a man so relentlessly bullish on storytelling seems never to have formulated the story of his own life.

On one level, I agree with Miller - Patterson "seems" never to have formulated the story of his own life.

But the real and deeper truth is otherwise, in my opinion. Patterson knows exactly who he is, and exactly what he has done, and exactly how he got to where he got. But he does not want to tell anyone. If he did, he would be in jail. So, he doesn't.

That is my opinion in a nutshell.

Now I will show you a dozen examples, one at a time, about how Patterson deceives people who read his memoir. And how he covers up the truth.

I believe it is possible that I am 100% correct. It may be true that I am not 100% correct, but almost 100% correct.

However, it's a difficult task to take him out. Because: as soon as I say one thing, his many handlers will rush to his aid, and fabricate documents to make me look like a liar, or destroy documents to make me look like a liar. I already know that.
Or produce a bunch of "witnesses" out of nowhere who are paid to lie.

I already know their game. This is how they "play." It is not a level playing field.

So, I can only say: I am offering my opinion. That is all. My opinion is opinion and nothing more.

And, I will sometimes offer supporting facts and evidence, and sometimes not, even though I believe I have the supporting facts and evidence because: i don't want those facts and evidence destroyed by him and his handlers.

To begin: In my opinion, James Patterson's real profession is that of a water-boy. He has been a water-boy since at least November 1984, and he continues to be one today. He may be tall, he may be big, he may sound tough by using curse words, and he may well be a very intimidating figure to some, but in my view, formed over many years, he is really just a little weasel liar water-boy for others who are far more powerful than he can ever hope to be.

That's what he is.

He doesn't have to be a little weasel liar water-boy. He could have become: a writer.

But to be a writer, one who writes a book read over and over by others, he would have to take certain actions, like tell the truth instead of lie. And he is not capable of that.

Because so long as he lies, he is wealthy beyond his wildest dreams. If he walks away from the money and towards the truth, his future is unknown.

So, he remains a little weasel, liar, water-boy - who wishes he could grow up and become a writer. He envies Stephen King. Because Stephen King is no one's water-boy. Stephen King is a real writer. James Patterson looks at Stephen King and wishes he, Patterson, was a real writer - who made it on his own - like Stephen King did.

That is my honest opinion of James Patterson on this day, at this moment in time.

And Laura Miller, unsurprisingly, has no idea how James Patterson became the world's best-selling author - because James Patterson is not going to tell her. Or anyone.

That is why his memoir is rightfully described as follows by a reader reviewer I read on Good Reads:
"crap, about crap."

Yes, that is what his new book is: "crap, about crap."

In Laura Miller's piece in the New Yorker she writes:

"he rose to become the C.E.O. of the agency’s North American branch"

-- and this title is also mentioned by other journalists because: Patterson does state in his memoir, as I recall, that he
was "CEO of JWT North America."

OK. Let's say he was.

What is "North America" - ? How would you define it?

Here is one answer I found online:

What is considered North America?
The term Northern America refers to the northern portion of the continent. It includes the world's largest island Greenland and the sovereign states of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. About 498 million people live in Northern America (in 2019.)

Here is another answer I found online:

What are the 7 countries in North America?
Northern American Countries
Canada. At nearly 10 million square kilometers or over 3.8 million square miles, Canada is the largest country in North America and the second-largest country in the world (Russia is the first). ...
Mexico. ...
The United States of America (USA) ...
Antigua and Barbuda. ...
The Bahamas. ...
Barbados. ...
Cuba. ...
Dominica.

------------

Now, I have heard - for many years - that James Patterson was the CEO of JWT North America. So I look through his memoir. I read his memoir after taking it out of the library. And here is what I am looking for: I would like to read ONE story, even if it's only ONE or TWO pages long, about: his experience as CEO of JWT North America. I would like to read about JWT's office in Canada, and what happened when he went there. I would like to read about JWT's office in Mexico, and what happened when he went there. But, here's the thing: I could not find one story about James Patterson at any JWT office in Canada or Mexico.

I think that's because: JWT never had any office in Canada and never had any office in Mexico.

Yes, JWT had offices in Europe. Yes, JWT had offices in Asia. Yes, JWT had offices in Africa.

But the only JWT offices in "North America" were in: the United States.

And I am sure: James Patterson can pull out a business card that says "CEO OF JWT North America."

However, I can make a business card that says that, too.

I am sure, people who worked with him would tell you, "Oh, yes, that was his title - CEO of JWT North America."
And those people, some of them, may have no idea that JWT had no offices in Canada or Mexico.

So, call me crazy, but when a CEO of North America writes a memoir, I expect to read: stories about the experience of being a CEO
in North America - Canada, Mexico, or other countries outside the USA.

But no such stories exist in his memoir.

I think it's because: JWT had no offices outside the USA in North America. It was a fake title for James Patterson, because James Patterson was very busy doing: other things.

And here come a dozen people telling me James Patterson DID write chapter after chapter about Mexico and Canada, but, his editor felt the book was already too long.

Whatever.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:39 PM - Edit history (2)

I recall the Vietnam War. I was young, but I remember it. And one thing I remember about it is how upset people were that
wealthy young men could easily avoid the draft by: entering college, and staying in college. Meanwhile, those young men
less well-off who were not able to afford college or not eligible for admission to college for whatever reason,
would be sent off to fight in Vietnam, in a war never actually authorized by Congress.

That is my recollection. In recent years, I confirmed my recollection was correct by doing some research. So I believe my above paragraph is factually accurate.

-----------

In James Patterson's memoir he deliberately misrepresents this Vietnam-era draft law. Instead of saying you could avoid the draft by staying in college, he says the opposite: you would be drafted if you stayed in college.

I believe he makes this "error" deliberately, as I will explain in Deception #3 to come.


In many reviews I read, it appears to me the reviewer is too young to know or remember anything whatsoever about the Vietnam era, and does not know anything about the draft law in effect at that time.


So, I saw review after review online praising Patterson's memoir to the hilt - and repeating his false characterization of the Vietnam-era draft law.


Here is one such review excerpt below, from Kirkus. And if you've never heard of Kirkus, here is what I found online about them:

People also ask

Is Kirkus a reliable source?

Kirkus has been an industry-trusted source for honest and accessible reviews since 1933 and has helped countless authors build credibility in the publishing realm ever since.

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/james-patterson/james-patterson-by-james-patterson/

Book Review: James Patterson by James Patterson


JAMES PATTERSON BY JAMES PATTERSON
THE STORIES OF MY LIFE

BY JAMES PATTERSON ‧ RELEASE DATE: JUNE 6, 2022

One of the bestselling authors of all time celebrates his life and career.

...After graduating from Manhattan College, Patterson got a full fellowship to a doctoral program at Vanderbilt but left after a year for two reasons: Staying would have thrown him back into the Vietnam draft lottery, and he didn’t see his future in academia. ...

A brisk, entertaining read.

--------------

As I already mentioned: I saw many reviewers quote this portion of the James Patterson memoir. And when I read it in the book, I thought: there is no way any editor or publisher read this memoir before publication.

Because if your author is mentioning LAWS, you have a real duty to get it right.

But no one corrected it.

The pain and suffering of all those young men, both those who went because of the draft, and those who agonized over what to do and often fled to Canada, is all wiped away with a best selling memoir that says basically - Eh, I didn't feel like being drafted - SO I LEFT SCHOOL.

Yet, that is NOT how one avoided the draft back then: STAYING IN SCHOOL is how you avoided the draft. And I am sure James Patterson knows that.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:41 PM - Edit history (1)

(6/14 Update: I need to edit this, now that I know better what happened.)

As I recall, this memoir does not give any dates or an easy way to understand Patterson's life.

The timeline of his life as it relates to his education seems to me to be missing some material information,
because right now his education in grad school does not make sense to me. Here's why:

1) Vanderbilt University. a private university in Nashville, TN, has on its website a paragraph about James Patterson,
and here is what it states:

James Patterson, MA'70

https://www.vanderbilt.edu/alumni/about/award-distinguished-alum.php

2) In other words, that university is saying: He has completed a graduate degree - a Master of Arts degree. He finished it in 1970.

3) However, that university also says on its website, that to complete a Master of Arts in English, it takes: two years.
Here is where it says that: https://as.vanderbilt.edu/english/phd-degree-requirements/

4) So, here is what I don't understand: He was not in their MFA program - for a Master of Fine Arts in Creative Writing. Rather,
he was in their English program, which does not typically offer any terminal MA degree.

5) Consequently, what is the timeline here? He was born in March 1947. He went to Catholic school and graduated at age 18, which
makes the year 1965. Then he spent 4 years at Manhattan College, which means we are now at 1969. So, he goes to Vanderbilt in 1969 - and then, in one year only, he gets a 2-year terminal Masters of Arts degree which they typically do not award?

6) It sounds to me like: he entered Vanderbilt in 1969, and maybe did enter a 5-year program for a masters and doctorate, which at that university, is fully funded for five years. https://as.vanderbilt.edu/english/phd-admissions/

7) But, for some reason, he dropped out after only one year.

8) And then, when he became wealthy, the university decided: give this rich guy a terminal Masters of Arts now, because who knows, maybe he will donate a ton of money to the school. I say that because I can not figure how he got a 2-year terminal Masters in English from a university that does not issue such a degree, when he appears to only have been there: 1 year.


In short, there is some missing info about his educational background is what it seems to me. Missing from his memoir. Maybe he entered Vanderbilt in 1968, and not 1969? If so, that cuts into his memoir claim he worked at the Fillmore East. because that venue only opened in 1968.

Whatever went on, he should be saying: "I have an MA from Vanderbilt University." End of story. Because that would match the university's public claim.

But he never does that. Instead, he always says something about having a PhD or being admitted to a doctorate program, which can give one unfamiliar with this university the impression: I finished my Masters, and then got accepted into a doctorate program.

And it's not a "3-year" doctoral fellowship as some reviewers I read wrote. That program is generously funded for each masters/doctorate student for a full five years. And a possible 6th year.

With that kind of scholarship support, during a time of war, it is very odd to me that he: dropped out.

He says he left because he didn't want to be a teacher. I can believe that he did not want to teach.

But why on earth didn't he stay for their creative writing program and the MFA terminal degree? Was he rejected for that program? Was his writing deemed: not good enough, at that point in his life?

To sum up: I just think there is more info needed to understand the actual educational story of James Patterson - but, as usual, whatever has been omitted, you won't find in his memoir.

This may not be a material omission to some. But if you are a person seeking to understand the educational background of someone famous, then, it is a material omission.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:42 PM - Edit history (1)

In thinking more about Deception #3, let's just say for purposes of discussion that this is what actually happened: Vanderbilt University threw Patterson a 2-year terminal Master of Arts degree -- while knowing all along, he was only there for one year, 1969-1970, and he in no way completed all the requirements of that degree.

That would mean: Patterson's highest level of education is actually only:

a Bachelor's degree from Manhattan College

And, Patterson may have thought to himself, prior to writing his new memoir:

"A Bachelor's degree? From Manhattan College? That is just not impressive enough! I am, after all, the best selling author in the universe!!! I am SUPERIOR TO ALL!!! I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY: I WENT TO HARVARD!!!"

So, what does Patterson do? Who does he turn to for advice? I imagine this: Patterson calls up his pal, Jeb Bush, who seems to know all about education and deception. And I imagine this is how the conversation goes:

Patterson: "Jeb, is there any way I can say in my new memoir that I SHOULD have gone to Harvard?"

Jeb: "Sure! When the CIA created the 1974 federal law, Family Educational Right to Privacy - known as FERPA - , they specifically wrote that all college college applications are PRIVATE documents -- and can NEVER be: public records."

Patterson: "Really? I did not know that. So, I can just lie and say in my memoir: I applied to Harvard?"

Jeb: "Well, you should also give a reason why the application did NOT result in you being ADMITTED to Harvard. You have to invent some kind of snafu. For example: my son, George P. had only average undergraduate grades from Rice University -- and anyone can see his grades from Rice, just by asking for his personnel file from Miami Dade School District where he taught for a year. But when he wanted to go to law school, knowing he would eventually go into politics, he made a point of telling this lie to the media: He applied to Yale Law School, NYU Law School, etc - a whole bunch of law schools that obviously he was not academically eligible for. . Then he said to the media: But they all rejected me, except for University of Texas. That made it seem like: he suffered some kind of discrimination from these northeastern law schools - he's a victim! Because he was a Bush. See? He couldn't go around telling the media: I only applied to one law school in Texas because of my not-so-hot grades. You have to kind of pin the blame on some OTHER reason."

Patterson: "Huh. Well, I'm thinking now - maybe I can pin the blame for me not getting into Harvard on - a priest? At the Catholic high school? Maybe pretend HE was the one in charge of my college application? And he messed up by not sending my application to Harvard?"


Jeb: "That sounds really good! Because many people in this country never go to college. They have no idea what the application process to college entails. And even more people have no idea what the procedures are in a private Catholic school - the public does not know that YOU are solely for your college application."

Patterson: "Well, I am feeling a whole lot better now, Jeb! Thanks! I'll blame it all on the priest! Hey - by the way - did you ever lie to the press and say you applied elsewhere? And you didn't?"

Jeb: "Jim, I've told so many lies it's hard to keep track. But I do recall that in Feb 2015, after the Boston Globe came out with that piece on my private high school years - and correctly revealed that I was almost expelled from high school for low grades - I had a bunch of my pals in Texas get together and write an article for some Texas newspaper, saying that: 'Jeb COULD have gone to YALE, but, Jeb chose to go to college in Texas because I missed Texas.' Some crap like that. Because even though I was a LEGACY at Yale, by that time, Yale had changed, and they would not have accepted me with my VERY low high school grades under any circumstances."

Patterson: "Jeb, thanks for your help. You're such a smart guy. Now, in my memoir, I will be sure to say the priest screwed up - BY NOT SENDING IN MY COLLEGE APPLICATION TO HARVARD -- so that the public thinks: 'Gee, Patterson COULD HAVE GONE TO HARVARD!"

-----------

And so:

In Patterson's memoir, he tells this story of a priest in his Catholic high school failing to send in Patterson's college applications to the colleges Patterson has selected -- which include Harvard. And instead: the priest sendt the application to only one college, Manhattan College, a Catholic college.

Consequently, in his memoir, Patterson leaves readers with the impression: WOW! THIS PATTERSON GUY COULD HAVE GONE TO HARVARD! IF IT WEREN'T FOR THAT IDIOT PRIEST!!!

I found an article about James Patterson, wherein he says (and I think he has said this in other articles, too), that he dropped out of Vanderbilt after only one year. That means what Vanderbilt University is posting online -- that he has an MA degree -- is false.

Again, here's what Vanderbilt has posted online:


James Patterson, MA'70


https://www.vanderbilt.edu/alumni/about/award-distinguished-alum.php

That university is promoting him as a "Distinguished Alumni" - which is false. An alumni is someone who graduated - and has a degree. But he only attended that university -- for one year. He did not graduate from it.

So Vanderbilt should remove the "MA'70" designation and stop promoting him as a "Distinguished Alumni" since: he actually never graduated and has no degree.

They should instead put up a web page called "Distinguished Attendees" and promote him that way.

Here is Patterson saying in a NYT article that he dropped out after only one year, and again, he has said this before:

After graduating from Manhattan College in 1969, Patterson was given a free ride to Vanderbilt University’s graduate program in English literature but dropped out after just one year. “I had found two things that I loved, reading and writing,” he told me. “If I became a college professor, I knew I was going to wind up killing them both off.”

The New York Times Magazine

James Patterson Inc.

By Jonathan Mahler
Jan. 20, 2010

---------

In that NYT magazine article Patterson does not mention anything about the VIetnam-era draft law -- even though in his memoir he states that law incorrectly, and he claims in his memoir it is one of the reasons he left Vanderbilt.

He left Vanderbilt in 1970. It wasn't until 1971 he started his job in advertising.

Prior to this new memoir coming out, I read somewhere that his new memoir would reveal he "drove a NYC taxi cab"
But that his "hair was too long" and he was "fired" or something like that.

But none of that appears in the memoir.

I also read his "fans" have been "asking" for this memoir. However, this memoir says he wrote it for his own ego, or words to that effect.
So the reason for this memoir, based on earlier promotion I recall seeing, has really changed.

With a reported net worth of $800 million, he now wants desperately to have a "Working Class Hero" image but - in his new memoir he doesn't want to tell you how he could afford to live in NYC for that year, from 1970-1971.

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:44 PM - Edit history (2)

There are several things that do not ring true to me in Patterson's memoir about his working life prior to him going into advertising.

In his memoir he claims that during his time at Manhattan College, he and 10 friends would go to the Fillmore East and work for $12 an hour or something like that as "ushers" for music concerts.

I am finding this hard to believe on several levels.

But, I have no doubt that no matter what I may say, he can pull out 10 people (and pay them) and they will all swear on a stack of Bibles that every word in his memoir is true. So, I know: I am potentially up against a bunch of liars.

Nevertheless - here are a few things I find odd about his claim that he worked at the Fillmore East while an undergraduate:

1) His memoir never discloses his housing situation while he was at Manhattan College. I seem to recall reading his "first" apartment in NYC came after college - which means he was living in a college dormitory.

2) Manhattan College is a Roman Catholic college. I am 100% certain they would strictly enforce any policies pertaining to dorm life.

3) I am guessing: Patterson's dorm had curfews. So he (and 10 of his closest campus pals) actually could not go out at all hours of the night for their alleged work as "ushers" at a concert.

4) Here are the policies of Manhattan College posted online pertaining to dorm life:

https://inside.manhattan.edu/student-life/dean-of-students/code-conduct.php#quiethours

IV. RESIDENCE LIFE COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND CODE OF CONDUCT

A. Quiet Hours
Courtesy hours are in effect 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. This means that music, conversation, TV volumes and all other noise should be respectful of community living.

Quiet hours are from Sunday through Thursday, 11:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and on Friday and Saturday from midnight to 8:00 a.m. This means that music, conversation, TV volumes and all other noise should not emanate beyond one’s room.

Standard Minimum Sanctions May Result In

Reprimand. Chronic violations of quiet hours can lead to suspension from residence halls. ...

5) So, it would not surprise me if in fact: having a job such as Patterson described in his memoir would be impossible to have while living in a dorm at a college such as Manhattan College -- which I am guessing had a curfew policy that was in full force and effect while Patterson was a student there.

6) I do not have any firsthand recollection of the Fillmore East as a music venue. I read some info online. If what I read was true, then this venue (in the East Village of Manhattan) was located very far from Manhattan College (which is in the Bronx).

7) In addition, if what I read online about the Fillmore East was true, this venue, which later became the Saint nightclub, had a $5 general admission ticket price during the time it was open for concerts from 1968 to around 1971. And the multiple number of bands set to play each show were posted on the outside marquee. So - what is an usher doing? Not handing out programs or showing people to their seats, since it's general admission and there are no programs.

8) If what I read online about the Fillmore East is true, the concert promoter, Bill Graham, was known for caring about the bands and the patrons in this 2500+ seat venue, and he made certain there were medical personnel onsite at all times to help anyone who needed it.

In my own experience going to general admission concerts in venues to see musical groups, I do not ever recall dealing with any "usher."

So, for all those reasons, I do not believe Patterson's claim in his memoir that he and 10 other people worked as ushers at the Fillmore East during hie college days.

I think he lived in a dorm. I think going out at night was subject to a curfew in his dorm when he lived at this Roman Catholic college.

That is my opinion.

I also do not believe he spent summer after summer working at McLean Hospital in Belmont, MA. I think it is possible he worked there one summer, between high school and college. But I don't think he worked there every summer. It is just my gut feeling. He was not leaving his dorm in NYC in the Bronx every summer. My gut tells me he stayed in NYC during the summer in his college days.

Maybe Patterson did not have to work during his college days or college summers because: his father was now making so much money working at the Prudential Building in Boston.

Based on other info I read outside of his memoir, Patterson's parents lived in Lexington, MA, in a house. So, clearly, Patterson was not poor at this point. And I don't think he worked at any job at all during college.

Here is his mother's obituary in the local Lexington, MA newspaper online that I happened to see:

Isabelle (Morris) Patterson Obituary


Isabelle (Morris) Patterson JUPITER, Fla. Isabelle Patterson,
87, our loving mother and grandmother, passed away
Thursday, Jan. 14, 2010. A long-term care resident of The
Pavilion @ JMC in Jupiter, she was formerly of Newburgh,
N.Y., and Lexington, Mass. Born Jan. 17, 1922, she was the
only child of Charles and Isabelle Morris. Isabelle graduated
from the Newburgh Free Academy in 1939 and earned a
bachelor's degree from St. Joseph's College in Emmitsburg,
Md., in 1943. A devoted elementary school educator, she
taught in the parochial school system for 30 years. She was
preceded in death by her parents, Charles and Isabelle
Morris, and husband, Charles Patterson (1999). She is
survived by her son James Patterson, daughters Maryellen Patterson, Teresa Secrest and Carole Patterson, and grandchildren Brigid Dwyer, Meredith Dwyer, Andrew Klauk and Jack Patterson. With special gratitude to the staff of The Pavilion and Hospice of P.B. County, a memorial reception will be held for family, friends, staff and residents at The Pavilion, 4-6 p.m., Thursday, Feb. 4. The family requests that any memorial contributions be sent to The Pavilion @ JMC, 1230 South Old Dixie Highway, Jupiter, FL 33458. Arrangements entrusted to Aycock Funeral Home, Jupiter.

Published in The Lexington Minuteman from January 22 to January 29, 2010

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:45 PM - Edit history (1)

It seems to me that throughout his memoir, and elsewhere, James Patterson is desperately trying to now convince people he is just like the late John Lennon. I have seen recent media where Patterson is quoted as saying he sees everything though his "working class eyes from Newburgh."

But it all rings false to me. I am aware of the song by John Lennon titled "Working Class Hero." Here it is on you tube, with the lyrics, and John Lennon singing it:

" target="_blank">

James Patterson is the last person in the world I would associate with this song. But James Patterson's memoir seems determined to create some type of link between that song and Patterson's image.

In the memoir, Patterson writes something like he ran out that night to the Dakota apartment building where Lennon was shot and killed. Now I believe Patterson has said elsewhere (and said for many years) he lived on the upper west side, so I believe Patterson probably lived near the Dakota. And I remember when Lennon was shot and killed at the Dakota, and I remember how many people went and stood vigil there.

But do I believe Patterson was there, too? No, I do not.

The reason I do not is because of the statements Patterson makes in his memoir about his Florida house which I believe are false.

As I recall, Patterson's memoir says something like this: "My house in Florida has a BRIDGE to a house the John Lennon and Yoko were planning to live in." (Hint, hint, reader: see the connection? There's a "BRIDGE" between John Lennon's house and my house.)

But according to a Wall Street Journal I read - which went into great detail about Patterson's current Florida home -
there is no such bridge. Rather, there is a WALL that is the unique feature between Patterson's property and another property. And, John and Yoko did live in the house next door. They were not "planning" to buy it later or move there someday as Patterson says in his memoir if my memory serves me correctly; rather, they were ALREADY there.

So, Patterson is making the whole image out of his imagination. He wants the reader the associate him, Patterson, with John & Yoko. But there is no association. Patterson is not a "working class hero" like John Lennon wrote and sang about. And there is no "bridge."
between the two Florida homes.

Here are two excerpts from this March 29, 2012 Wall Street Journal article:

It was Ms. Patterson who first noticed the home because of an unusual feature: It is connected via a wall to the adjacent estate—the result of a 1920s property dispute.

Soon, fans began parking in the driveway to catch a glimpse of Mr. Patterson and the estate next door, which was previously owned by John Lennon and Yoko Ono.

From:

https://www.wsj.com › articles › SB10001424052702303816504577307560033502498

James Patterson's Big Home Overhaul in Palm Beach - WSJ

The best-selling author and his wife spent $14 million to renovate a historic estate in Palm Beach. "It's obnoxious, but we couldn't resist it," says best-selling author James Patterson of his ...

Last edited Tue Jun 14, 2022, 04:46 PM - Edit history (1)

One would think that if you take the time to read a book called "Stories of my Life" written by a person who spent
about 25 or 30 years working in one ad agency - from either 1970 or 1971, to 1996 or 1999 - that the author would
present a story explaining how he got his first job in that ad agency.

To me that seems logical.

But Patterson's memoir does not attempt to offer any "story" about how he got his first job in advertising. As I recall,
the only thing Patterson says in this memoir is the following: the first and last name of a man. Patterson claims this man
hired Patterson.

That's it. That's not a "story" to me.

I recall reading in one of the trades, I think it was Advertising Age, an article profiling Patterson in or about February 1985.
At this point, Patterson is almost 38 years, and he holds the title of Executive Creative Director at the ad agency JWT.

This published profile states the following, if I remember correctly:

1) Patterson had a friend who called him, and told Patterson about a writing job in advertising.

2) Patterson came to the ad agency, but did not have any portfolio of advertising copy to show as work.

3) Patterson then took a "copy test" at the ad agency. ("Copy" means the text / written words of an advertisement.)

4) Patterson was then hired, by a woman creative director at the ad agency.

5) The woman's first name was not mentioned, and her last name was not mentioned.

6) Patterson told Ad Age he remembered she had a "Vietnamese flag" in her office.


And, that's how he got hired in advertising, according to Patterson in this profile published in Advertising Age, titled:

"Patterson's Write-On Approach."

But you don't get any of these details in his new memoir. You only get: the first and last name of a man - and Patterson says this man hired Patterson.

That's it.

Hardly a story. And, so - this 2022 memoir bears no relation to what Patterson told Ad Age in 1985 re: how he got hired.

I will have to go through this thread and add the page numbers of his memoir on each post to show exactly what I am talking about. Right now I am just writing from memory.

I seem to recall that at one point in this memoir, Patterson writes a list of books he claims are "serious" books. It was difficult to keep awake reading his memoir because I found it so boring. I had to put it down a number of times.

But my eyes opened wide when I saw on his "serious" book list the book title "Confederacy of Dunces" -- which is not a "serious" book, but rather a comic novel. It won a Pulitzer Prize.

I wondered: Patterson's memoir editor, his publisher, his agent -- who is supposed to be reading his memoir, prior to publication? That person is not doing s very good job at all.

From Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Confederacy_of_Dunces

A Confederacy of Dunces is a picaresque novel by American novelist John Kennedy Toole which reached publication in 1980, eleven years after Toole's death.[2] Published through the efforts of writer Walker Percy (who also contributed a foreword) and Toole's mother, Thelma, the book became first a cult classic, then a mainstream success; it earned Toole a posthumous Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1981, and is now considered a canonical work of modern literature of the Southern United States.[3]

The book's title refers to an epigram from Jonathan Swift's essay Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting: "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." Its central character, Ignatius J. Reilly, is an educated but slothful 30-year-old man living with his mother in the Uptown neighborhood of early-1960s New Orleans who, in his quest for employment, has various adventures with colorful French Quarter characters....

-----------

There has never been a movie made of this book, though many have tried. I saw a theatrical production of this book's story, but I did not enjoy the play as much as I enjoyed the story by reading the book. I probably would not even go see it as a film. I prefer reading the book. I still laugh out loud whenever I read it.

There are many different book covers, but I think this book cover, below, is the one on the book when I first bought it (I have bought it repeatedly, just because I needed a version in better condition). I have read this book many, many times:

In Patterson's memoir he has one "chapter" titled "Outline! Outline! Outline!" and he claims this is what he tells students
when he speaks at schools.

But I recall stumbling upon a newspaper article a long time ago, where the reporter stated Patterson told these young
students at an elementary school: "Don't become a writer."

I remember this because: I remember feeling shocked - and thinking: How dare he say this to young students! Who is he to tell kids they should NOT become writers? Good grief!!!

----

I also think Patterson does a lot of theatrics with his claim of writing everything by hand on yellow legal pads that he has stacked up for journalists to come and see, to "prove" he is working on dozens of projects at once.

You know what? I could buy 100 or so yellow legal pads. I could stack them into 30 or so stacks. I could handwrite some scribbles on the top page of each legal pad stack (and make sure I have placed one handwritten page face up, on top of each of the 30 or so stacks). I could invite some reporters over and point to these stacks and say, "See? 30 projects I'm working on -- all at once! All by hand!"

And gee, the journalist could then take photos of my 30 stacks of - blank - legal pads.

So I do not believe he "outlines" as he describes he does. I think he has duped reporters. And I think he is often on a computer.

-------

I also think one way he prepares for his books, like this memoir, is to make a: "List of Things To Do."

There are certain things he wants to "do" in the book. Certain lies he wants to tell. I wrote a list of 25 such examples, meaning 25 things in this memoir I think are lies, but he wanted to include for certain reasons.

I thought about posting such here online, but after much thought, I think I will keep it to myself. But it wasn't hard to write such a list. What was harder was staying awake while reading his memoir -- and getting through it, as it sometimes felt like torture to me.

Just FYI: I am not finished with this thread. I will return soon. Within a week.

I am up early this morning because I have a migraine headache thinking about these matters.

I will try to finish this thread today. But bear in mind: there is a lot more - a lot more - I could have written here.

I just have to get back to the business of trying to make a living and taking care of my health. I have come to accept
no one will ever attempt to do anything about any matter regarding James Patterson and his handlers.

He can say or do anything he wants with impunity. He has acted this way, with impunity and complete arrogance,
for almost 40 years now, ever since November 1984.

His memoir states something in the end to the effect that almost everything
he wrote in the memoir is false.

He now gives lectures to the public, as he did this week in Battlecreek, Michigan, claiming
he is an "entertainer."

If almost everything in his memoir is known by him to be false -- and an exercise of his free speech -- and
he is an entertainer, then this book should be classified in a different genre. It reads like a bad comedy routine.

Thus, this book should not be marketed or
classified as a memoir, nor as an autobiography or biography.

In my view, this book is a piece of fiction with true
stories about playing golf with famous people thrown in. So, I think he has created a new genre of book, though I have
no idea what to call it.

And if people think this book is the greatest thing since sliced bread, that's their right.

I have the right to walk away from what I consider garbage / trash. I continue to agree with how the reviewer on Good Reads I quoted earlier described this book: "crap, about crap." Maybe that is the name of the new genre Patterson has created here: CRAP.

Not mentioned in this memoir is a November 29, 1984 NYT news article, published in the Advertising section of the NYT Business Section, with the headline: "Test Seeks Creative Talent." The article is by Phillip H. Dougherty, now deceased. He was the long-time advertising columnist of the NYT Business Section. Here is how this article opens, with an aexplanation to the reader of why the J. Walter Thompson has decided to distribute a "copywriting aptitude test to the masses - via advertising" -- from this article:

"DURING the 1970's, according to the high command of J. Walter Thompson, New York, about 90 percent of all TV commercials produced by the office were seriously copy-tested. In this decade, however, the figure is more like 30 percent, and even in that minority group the test results no longer create the frenetic go or no-go situation that existed a decade ago.

There is a whole new attitude around for the 80's, according to Stephen G. Bowen, executive vice president and general manager, and James B. Patterson, executive vice president and creative director. Entrepreneurship is back on the client side and feelings in the gut are being listened to once again.

The change in the business, the pair believe, is going to require a new breed of even more imaginative creative people. And that is why the agency has decided to distribute a copywriting aptitude test to the masses - via advertising. .."

In short, James Patterson has allegedly done some research, and research results show there is a "change in business" -- and thus, this "change in business" discovered by research is the rationale for publishing a full-page ad which is allegedly an aptitude test the next day in a full-page ad in the NYT.


-------

In Patterson's new memoir on pages 114-116, he gives a very different reason and rationale for publishing the upcoming full page ad to the public. The memoir makes no mention of any research. The memoir makes no mention of any "change in business."

Instead, the memoir says this on page 114:

-- "nobody very good wanted to work there" (at J. Walter Thompson creative department)
--"Necessity truly is the mother of invention"
--"here's what I decided to do about our personnel problems"

Patterson then mentions the full-page ad he published in the NYT.

--------------

Note the following: I have never in my life seen any ad agency publish an aptitude test as a print advertisement and invited
the public to respond by mail to allegedly compete for a copywriting job.

No one before Patterson ever did this to my knowledge, and no one since Patterson has ever done this to my knowledge.

I believe strongly, now, the reason ad agencies do not do this is because of the following facts:

Any ad agency is bombarded daily with letters, inquiries, phone calls, etc from creative people seeking work in a creative departent, whether as a copywriter, art director, producer. To advertise a full-page ad to the public is simply not necessary and
would only result in an incredible burden of responding to ever more inquiries.

In short, there was no actual legitimate reason for J. Walter Thompson to have published this full-page ad to the public.

Back in 1984, on the day before the ad was to appear in the NYT, Patterson gave that interview to DOugherty and claimed "research" and a "change in business" is the reason for the ad.

In 2022, in his memoir, Patterson makes no such claim.

-------
I believe now:

The ad was a scam, It was part of a stock fraud scheme, as J. Walter Thompson, a publicly held company, was seeking a way to generate positive news articles in the press, in the hope that such positive news articles -- about this full-page ad -- would lead to a demand for their stock.

In other words, people would seek to buy their chronically depressed stock because of this fake good news generated by the false ad.
(This is the same premises as a penny stock fraud scheme: Bombard a chat room with fake positive news about the stock to induce purchase of the stock.)

No one in the public had any chance whatsoever of getting a job in the creative department of J. Walter Thompson by mailing in a response to this full-page ad about to be published the next day in the NYT.

--------------------


From the Nov 29th, 1984 NYT article, written by Dougherty, here is another except:

After all the work and all the talk, it was surprising to hear Mr. Patterson say he would be content if the novel test resulted in only two new writers, and would be delighted with four. Mr. Bowen, who is in charge of the bottom line, was a little more magnanimous, suggesting that he could accommodate 15 or so.

So, to repeat: In 1984 James Patterson says to the NYT he intends to hire: 2 to 4 new copywriters. (Bowen actually has no authority to hire any creative people as Bown is on the account, not the creeative side, of advertising.)

The full-page ad omits disclosing how many new copywriters will be hired.

But "2 to 4" new copywriters is not what Patterson says in his 2022 memoir. In his 2022 memoir, Patterson claims on page 115:

"we hired over fifty writers"

---------------------------

To sum up:

Why is this ad being published?
--Research (1984) vs personnel problems (2022 memoir)

How many writers will be hired?
--2 to 4 copywriters (1984 news article by Phil Dougherty) verses 50+ writers (2022 memoir)

---------------------------------

It was easy for Patterson to hire "2 to 4" copywriters - and pass them off to the press as the ones from the public who responded to the ad.

2 of the 4 new copywriters were students -- seniors at Yale University at the time, set to graduate in 1985. And I believe, may have been told to respond to the ad by a teacher or parent who was contacted by one of Patterson's handlers -- and, that young person have had no knowledge whatsoever that this was a fake ad and a stock fraud scheme.

So when those 2 mailed in responses arrived to Patterson - as Patterson put his name on this fake ad and said mail it in to him -
those 2 got jobs.

A 3rd person who got a job was the son of a Republican COunty Chair person, and this young man was a national frisbee champion or some such thing, who apparently later left advertising and became a teacher. It is not difficult for Patterson's handlers to contact a local NY GOP County Chair that a job for his son awaits at JWT.

The 4th person who was heavily promoted in the press as being hired from the ad was actually: already an employee of JWT.
He was told by Patterson to complete a response. Obviously this employee did not need to "mail in" a response.

So there you have the "4" people hired - 2 Yale students, 1 GOP Chair's son, and 1 person already employed as a copywriter at JWT.
Patterson said he would hire "4" - well, here are people with copywriting jobs at JWT. Each one of them completed the aptitude test. Probably 2 of them have no idea they are recruited at Yale to submit a response because before they wrote a word they had this job.

But what happened to the thousands - and I mean thousands and thousands - of other people in the public who responded to this ad?

Well, their mailed-in responses were unopened by Patterson. They were on a "different track."

According to what Patterson's secretary, whose name was published in late1985 in the NY Daily News told me, Patterson came to her office, carrying loads of unopened mail. (The responses to the full-page ad.)

He dumped these on her desk. He said, "Open these. Read the response. Then send out a rejection letter."

So, this woman had to open the mail-in responses, and read thousands and thousands of mailed-in responses from the public, and then automatically send each person a rejection letter.

She had never seen the full-page ad. This is what she told me. She had no idea what she was reading or why. This is what she told me. She just did what her boss, James Patterson, told her to do.

She was being exploited. The public was being exploited.

And no one in the public - none of the 5,000+ people who mailed in a response - ever knew this was a scam, They thought: someone with hiring authority is reading my response, and maybe I will get a job based on my demonstrated writing skill.

But that is not what was happening. No one with hiring authority ever read their response - despite the fact this benefit was promised to all in the ad.

------------

IN my opinion, Patterson should be prosecuted, now, for the theft of property of these thousands of consumers, because there was no deadline to respond to this ad published in the ad or anywhere else. Obtaining property of others under false pretenses is called theft as far as I know. Patterson is THE individual who approved this ad, and, I believe, he wrote the "aptitude" test. He is the advertiser. And he is guilty of a job scam and guilty of theft resulting from this fake ad he knew was fake at the time he approved it and began promoting it to the press.

That is my belief.

Yes, he can sue me for defamation if he wants, but -- what I am saying here is true.

And, there is no defamation if what a person is writing is true.

I believe others know I am writing the truth here.

There are many reasons why a publicly held advertising agency with a client roster of huge corporate clients
might have the problem of constantly failing to pay out an acceptable sum of money to its stockholders, and why the stock profits are
therefore chronically depressed.

Here are some of those possible reasons:

1) Real estate expenses, such as rent of the office space, are way too high -- so money that would otherwise go to stockholders is instead being used up to pay high overhead costs.

2) Fat salaries of management, especially when there are many layers of management -- so that money that would otherwise go to paying higher salaries to attract top-tier, experienced creative people such as copywriters -- and would otherwise go to stockholders is instead being wasted to overpay a bunch of guys in suits.

3) Some type of kickback or accounting scheme is happening -- so that money that would otherwise go to the stockholders is instead being pocketed under the table somehow, with the financial books covering it up somehow.

Or, here is another reason why stock profits could be continuously depressed:

4) The ad agency has a client who is not a corporation, but rather a government client - and, the government official is corrupt, and is embezzling money, with the help of the ad agency.

Such a client might be saying things like: "Hey, Congress has voted to stop funding the Niceragua Contras, but they still need our help there- so if you are patriotic, then start handing me money so I can get that money to them anyway."

Such a corrupt politician, appealing to a Chairman who himself is a veteran, may then be getting that money handed to him -- and stick the money in his own pocket.

Perhaps a corrupt politician does this because not only is he a corrupt politician, but a corrupt politician without a college degree -- who has been publicly faking a college degree for decades to win votes and get elected and appointed to various government offices.

And that politician knows: he can't make any money in the private sector. The federal FERPA law allows private sector employers to obtain college transcripts - and he fears it is in the private sector where he would be exposed as a fraud for faking a college degree.

So he has to stay in the public sector -- in elected or appointed government office -- where there is no right of journalists or voters to obtain his college transcript under FERPA. And no possible real scrutiny of his educational credentials allowed.

He is thus highly motivated to somehow keep his hand in any cookie jar he can for as long as he can because he can never get a job in the private sector or serve on a board in the world because in these situations his resume fraud of faking a college degree could be exposed.
------------------

J. Walter Thompson's full-page ad on the back of the NY Times Business Section which appeared the day after Dougherty's NYT advertising column description herein on Deception #10, mentioned a roster of the ad agency's clients by name. All were corporate clients. There was no mention of any government client.

But JWT is an ad agency that was founded by: a U.S. Marine. And, the U.S. Marines was a client of the this ad agency for decades, including at the time the 1984 NYT full-page ad was published.

In short, there was an omission in the full-page ad: as there was no mention of this ad agency having a government client.

-------------------

At the time this full-page ad came out, there were few analysts on Wall Street paying much attention to the stock prices of publicly held ad agencies. However, the JWT stockholders were very much aware that they, as stockholders, were not receiving much money -- ever. Prior to the 1984 full-page ad, for a decade or so, they were asking -- and year after year they were asking, and then loudly asking, and then VERY loudly asking at annual meetings: WHERE IS THE MONEY FOR ME, THE STOCKHOLDER?


And there never was a good answer.

So, when James Patterson approved the fake ad, and JWT published this fake full-page ad in late November 1984, I believe the hope of James Patterson, and other management, was this:

If this fake ad can generate a lot of positive press for who knows how long, then, maybe more people will buy our stock - and with this increased demand - the stock value will rise - and then maybe we can fork over some money to these VERY angry stockholders who are constantly on our back.

----------------

The result of the 1984 fake full-page ad was lots of positive news article in various media.

And, indeed, someone was looking closely -- very closely -- at the JWT stock and its pathetic chronically low stock profits.

---------------------

That person looking very closely at JWT stock and its problems was named Martin Sorrell. He worked for years at another huge ad agency, Saatch & Saatchi, and was a financial analyst, He saw: this ad agency, JWT, has enormous corporate clients - and no profits for its stockholders.

Sorrell had left Saatchi, and created his own small company, called WPP which stood for Wire Plastic Products. They made wire shopping carts and were based in the UK, as Sorrell was British.

He wanted to own an ad agency. He did not own any ad agencies - yet.

So he went to a bank, got lots of money in credit, and now had a "war chest" to buy an ad agency.

In June 1987, he successfully appealed directly to the stockholders of JWT - and offered them a fair and high price for their stock. The stockholders were overjoyed. FINALLY someone was going to pay them some real money for their stock! This crappy stock which wasn't paying these stockholders any money for a decade! FINALLY! HERE IS THE MONEY FOR ME, THE STOCKHOLDER!


----------

When a 3rd party comes along and pays money to stockholders - over the objections of management, as happened with JWT, because JWT management wanted NOTHING to do with Martin Sorrell -- it is not called a "merger" or a "negociation." Rather, the correct business term is this: HOSTILE TAKEOVER.

It is HOSTILE because MANAGEMENT is NOT involved and there is NO negociation with management. JWT Management, as far as Martin Sorrell was concerned, could: GO TO H*LL.

I believe it was quite clear to Martin Sorrell, who was studying the history of those low pay-outs to stockholders, that JWT was poorly managed financially (and/or had other huge financial problems, such as embezzlement, etc.).

Martin Sorrell did not need JWT management's "permission" to buy JWT. Sorrell bought ALL the stock from the stockholders, who had been very unhappy for a decade. Management told stockholders: DON'T SELL TO SORRELL because management knew they could all be fired under a new boss, Martin Sorrell.

But the stockholders ignored JWT management, and were happy to sell to Sorrell, who again, paid those stockholders a fair and high price.

This event, this HOSTILE TAKEOVER of JWT, was the biggest story in advertising history for the past 100 years in my opinion. Yet, there are people in advertising who probably don't even know what I just told you above because: in advertising, you are really really busy. If it's not happening at your agency, and it does not impact your job, and you are not reading the trades or advertising columns regularly, you just don't know - and don't care. It impacts you not at all.

But in the much broader view of advertising, this HOSTILE TAKEOVER of JWT was an enormous, huge, incredible, mind-blowing story. Consider these two facts:

1) NO HOSTILE TAKEOVER had ever happened to any ad agency before. People did not even believe it could happen because= what are you buying when you buy an ad agency? Only the name of the ad agency and: the people who work there, That's it.

2) So JWT was the FIRST- AND ONLY - USA ad agency in HISTORY to have EVER been taken over in a HOSTILE TAKEOVER. It never happened before June 1987 when Sorrell and WPP took over JWT - and it has not happened since. It likely never will again, because I will guess that some out-to-lunch or missing in action lawyers at ad agencies have suddenly woke up from their slumber or returned from their very long lunch breaks.

---------------

Now, when I read Patterson's 2022 memoir, I expected he would mention: this hostile takeover.

But there is no mention of any hostile takeover in his memoir.

Instead, Patterson pretends there was some type of gentleman's agreement? Some type of friendly merger? Something that he cold stick under his chapter heading of "the fine art of negociating."

There was no negociating with respect to Martin Sorrell's hostile takeover of JWT and JWT management. The only negociating was between Martin Sorrell and the JWT stockholders.

-------------------

Martin Sorrell went on to buy other ad agencies, including Oglivy& Mather. But in that deal, Oglivy's management agreed to be bought out by Sorrell. That deal was not a hostile takeover.

----------------

To learn more about what happened to JWT while James Patterson was in management there, and how a little company called WPP took over JWT in a hostile takeover, you can read the following - and when you do, compare it with Patterson's memoir pages 120-121, the only place in his memoir where he mentions Martin Sorrell.

See if you can figure out what James Patterson is talking about. I could not.

Martin Sorrell's WPP hostile takeover of JWT is not mentioned by Patterson, even though:

JWT is the FIRST and ONLY USA ad agency in history to EVER be taken over in a hostile takeover.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/06/27/business/company-­‐news-­‐britons-­‐new-­‐ bid-­‐wins-­‐jwt.html
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/09/business/how-­‐don-­‐johnston-­‐lost-­‐jwt.html
https://www.livemint.com/Companies/aZXfuDlQGtW6ynGo33rLpN/The-­‐day-­‐the-­‐ advertising-­‐industry-­‐changed.html
Hostile Takeover | Ad Age
https://adage.com/article/adage-­‐encyclopedia/hostile-­‐takeover/98710
In June 1987, WPP Group shocked the world. Led by Chief Executive Martin Sorrell, the British company launched the first hostile takeover of an ad agency: JWT. Within two weeks after the initial ...
https://www.mmm-­‐online.com/home/channel/agencies/making-­‐headlines-­‐key-­‐
moments-­‐throughout-­‐martin-­‐sorrells-­‐historic-­‐career/
-June 1987
Sorrell dramatically changed course with a successful hostile £351m bid for J Walter Thompson, the world’s fourth-largest agency and the so-called “university of advertising”. He brushed aside the thinking that hostile takeovers were madness in a personal service industry. He was convinced that he could turn around JWT, beset by internal strife, threatened with client defections and making a pathetic 4% profit on turnover. Sorrell’s experience at Saatchi & Saatchi had taught him that even an averagely efficient agency could manage 12%, a well-run one even more. The Saatchi brothers had previously coveted JWT, but had to back off because of client conflict.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jul/04/wpp-­‐sir-­‐martin-­‐sorrell-­‐ profile
https://www.mmm-­‐online.com/home/channel/agencies/making-­‐headlines-­‐key-­‐ moments-­‐throughout-­‐martin-­‐sorrells-­‐historic-­‐career/
The deal that announced he had arrived was the $566m takeover of JWT in 1987. "The funniest thing about it was we were in this tiny sort of sub-­‐basement, rather like rats underground, bidding for a company 13 times our size. It was quite amusing."

This is a difficult post to write because it is just so abhorrent to me that James Patterson did this.
------------

James Patterson approved that full-page NYT ad which appeared on the back page of the NYT Business Section dated Nov 30, 1984. Had he not approved it, the ad would not have been published. He was the one and only person with the authority to approve that ad - and he knew that ad was false. He knew he was exploiting the public, and more specifically, a certain type of person in the public:
a person who had never before been employed as an ad agency copywriter.

Because if you HAD ever been employed as an ad agency copywriter - you were not eligible to respond to the ad. You learn this in the first sentence of the ad.

So, in Patterson's memoir when he writes about his ad (as I mentioned herein in Deception #10), he knows: he has directed this full-page ad's non-existent benefit (of a creative director reviewing your writing) to those who have never before had their work evaluated by a creative director.

But he does NOT specify this target-group in his memoir in the brief chapter discussing this ad.

Instead, he gives a reason in his memoir for the ad - couldn't attract good people to the agency - as the reason for the ad. Well, you know what? JWT did have a creative reputation as the "Old Grey Lady of Madison Avenue" - the same moniker used to describe the NYT as the "Old Grey Lady. But if you are an ad agency with a poor creative reputation, then, you put more money into hiring great creative people - and you go to recruiters, known as "head hunters" in the ad industry, and you offer MORE money for EXPERIENCED, TOP-TIER creative people, because MORE MONEY will entice and attract THAT kind of super high-level talent.

And guess what?

Those expensive, experienced copywriters are not taking any "copywriting aptitude test." They don't need to. They already have a portfolio of work that has been evaluated by creative directors elsewhere and the industry itself. So, sure, JWT had a crappy creative reputation within the industry - and if JWT were interested in changing that, JWT could have picked up the phone, called some headhunters, offered sky high salaries, and attracted the cream of the crop to come to their agency. Happens all the time in advertising. Experienced people in advertising change jobs for more money.

But new people - people with no portfolio - are just trying to get their foot in the door. Especially as a new copywriter. And this fake ad he approved was therefore aimed at them, and slammed the door in their face. However, because there are many OTHER kinds of creative people in advertising, not just copywriters, but producers, the ad attracted those people, too, because a producer or assistant producer is not a copywriter but might want to become a copywriter and not have time to go put together a writing portfolio. (And without going into any more detail that this, that fact - that first-time copywriters also include people already in advertising not employed as copywriters but therefore eligible to respond to this fake ad - is how Patterson got busted in this scam.)

----------------

When I started this post by saying this is a difficult post to write what I meant is this: Patterson knew that JWT was founded by a U.S. Marine some 100 years ago. Patterson knew that one of the agency's big accounts was: the U.S. Marines.

That means: JWT is an employer who has a contract with the U.S. government.

And Patterson knew: all advertising not only has to be approved by him, but, also must meet certain legal guidelines.

Well, here's a little legal newsflash: When an employer has a contract with the U.S. government as J Walter Thompson did, then, that employer is required by federal law to give hiring preference to VETERANS.

You may have noticed that when you apply for jobs with some companies, the application will ask you if you are a veteran. If you are a veteran, you have a preferential status in the hiring process.

But this full-page fake ad approved by Patterson: (a) omitted any mention that the U.S. Marines was a client of JWT, (b) omitted any mention that JWT has a contract with the federal government, and (c) omitted any mention that veterans have preference in hiring.

By omitting all that material information, veterans who read this full-page newspaper ad or any of the MANY news articles appearing later about this ad - and needed a job -- and may themselves have been talented writers who had never worked as a copywriter in an ad agency -- saw no reason to apply and respond to this ad. They were being discriminated against by James Patterson. And all the consumers responding to this ad were being ripped off.

That is why James Patterson, throughout his crappy memoir, professes deep respect for veterans, He discriminates against veterans in the hiring process is the real truth, and he exploits consumers is the real truth. But he's not going to tell you that in his memoir.


It appears to me that James Patterson and his handlers told the lawyers at JWT in November 1984 -- three weeks after that presidential election - and right before this fake ad was published in the NYT on Nov 30th:

Why don't you JWT lawyers all take a hike, for about, oh, say three years? We don't need you people around.

----------------------

Re Don Johnston

Repeatedly in his memoir James Patterson puts down the Chairman of JWT, Don Johnston (who is now deceased - but Patterson does not mention Johnston is now deceased). Patterson calls Johnston "skinny" and claims Johnston worked in the "mailroom" -- and never mentions anything else about Johnston's background.

As I recall reading elsewhere, Don Johnston was a veteran of the U.S. Army with a high rank, I believe it was according to the NYT, who wrote about him after the June 1987 hostile takeover by WPP and Martin Sorrell. And, Johnston had a Masters/MBA in Business or Economics according to the NYT.

So: I believe Johnston was actually NOT a skinny runt who came out of the mailroom.
But that's how Patterson portrayed him in the memoir.

-------------

Re Steve Bowen

In his memoir Patterson claims Steve Bowen is deceased. Patterson goes into great detail about how he died.

I don't believe that Patterson's management sidekick, Steve Bowen, is deceased. I think it possible Steve Bowen may be alive and living under an assumed name.

But Steve Bowen, who went to Holy Cross, and may have been a U.S. Marine, and whose father also worked at JWT, may not want to be called to ever testify should any matter about James Pattersom ever go to trial.

So, James Patterson makes it very clear Steve Bowen is deceased. But, I am not convinced Steve Bowen is deceased.


-------------

I am now finished writing this thread. I hope my headache clears up because I so dislike thinking about James Patterson and his handlers.

----------

I had intended to post exact page numbers and add other info, but I am leaving it here.

---------

I will mention this though:

1) It seems to me there is a correlation here, between how the writers in his writing factory are being underpaid and how the stockholders of JWT were underpaid. A hostile takeover of JWT was needed to correct that underpayment to stockholders. Perhaps some type of hostile takeover of his writing factory is also needed, so that: the illegal contracts which sound like they exist in perpetuity are destroyed and declared illegal, and the writers can obtain back royalties and future royalties of their work.

2) It seems to me that 5,000 consumers should be reimbursed for supplies they purchase to respond to a fake ad - their pens, typewriter rentals, paper, envelopes, mailing costs, etc. And, they should be told: no creative director ever evaluated your work. The ad was a scam. You may well be a better writer than the jerk who approved this fake ad.

3) It also seems to me that those who endorsed James Patterson's books by writing blurb should be given an opportunity to better investigate the facts of his memoir, or, non-facts, and ask the publisher to remove their names from future printings of that memoir.

-------

Finally, it is quite clear to me that James Patterson has absolutely no interest in Dolly Parton or Morgan Freeman. What James Patterson is interested in is something called "product placement." And, I believe Patterson subscribes to the index that shows the likability factor of celebrities, which advertisers often consult to determine which celebrity should pitch a product.

Dolly Parton ranks highest on that index, at 95%, and has held that ranking for years. So, of course Patterson will contact her, claim that she and Patterson both come from "working class backgrounds" etc and try to partner with her. Patterson loves having his photo taken with her, appearing with her, etc etc. Patterson hopes her 95% likability rating will somehow extend to him if he puts his "James Patterson" brand next to hers as often as possible.

Same with Morgan Freeman - who has also held a very high rating on this index. That's why Patterson blathers on that he had to have Morgan Freeman, a Black actor, play that role. But Patterson knew when he wrote the first book that Freeman was very high on the index, and Patterson wanted Freeman. This is what I believe.

I believe this because: there are not many Black people who work in advertising. If you have ever watched the outstanding show "black ish" on tv, where the main character, a Black male, works in advertising, you know what I mean.

Patterson had the authority to make real and positive change in a huge advertising agency by hiring Blacks, women, and others usually shut out of the white male dominated world of advertising.

But you will notice that in his memoir, Patterson makes no claims about how many Blacks he ever hired at JWT. I will guess the reason for that is because he hired so few - if any.

Maybe later I will post links here to the celebrity index I mentioned above, so you can better see what I am talking about.

--------------------
Thanks for taking the time to read this thread.

By the way, I have never met Patterson and never spoken to him. Nor do I wish to.

Here's what I was talking about above, though this is not the only such service:


https://www.businessinsider.com/most-valuable-celebrity-endorsements-2011-10?op=1


HOME ENTERTAINMENT

The Most Valuable Celebrity Endorsements

Ever wonder how celebrities get chosen for ad campaigns? It's based on research of how much you, the public, responds to them.
Celebrity DBI is an "independent index for brand marketers and agencies that determines a celebrity's ability" to influence endorsements. The index evaluates celebrities based on their awareness, appeal and relevance to a brand's image, and influence on consumers....




https://celebritydbi.com/media/buy-product-here-blake-shelton-yes/

Celebrity DBI

"Among the other fun facts in the Celebrity DBI’s quantification of
stardom, culled from a weekly online survey of 1,000 Americans ages 13
to 75, Swift has a public awareness ranking of 92%, second among
country stars to Dolly Parton, who is known by 95% of survey
respondents.".

" target="_blank">

My favorite review of the above book:

K8
Dec 28, 2016 K8 rated it did not like it
Shelves: childrens-lit, read-in-2016

"I currently have no polite words for this one."

More 1-star lowest reviews here:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/29467250-give-please-a-chance?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=Lh8OHKGaPJ&rank=1

I found a letter I knew I had, but just recently stumbled across in my files. It is from James Patterson to me, and it is dated August 1985.

I did not write to him; I had written to Don Johnson, CEO of JWT, about the sleazy bait and switch advertising scam they were doing on the public.

Don Johnson did not respond to me.

James Patterson wrote to me instead.

I did not respond to James Patterson's letter.

But I will post a redacted version of it (as it is so full of lies), leaving un-redacted one key lie he writes.

You can compare/contrast what he writes in this letter verses what his memoir says.

I will try to find time later today to post both this letter and that brief excerpt of his memoir.

I realize I would have to post the jpeg of his letter somewhere online before I can post a jpeg of it here, so I will just excerpt from it very briefly for now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, here is what Patterson's June 2022 memoir says about the reason he approved a full page advertisement (in November 1984), in the NY Times -- which was actually a scam bait and switch ad, duping consumers, as it was a false ad for many reasons.

---------------------------------------


From Patterson' memoir, Pages 114 and 115

"One big problem with the creative department at J. Walter Thompson was that - when I started running at least -- nobody very good wanted to work there. I doubted that we could recruit a decent porter. Thompson New York was seen as uptight, stodgy, and not very creative."

...."The reason I ran the ad was that I was desperate...."

------------------------------------

But here's what he wrote to me in an August 1985 letter about JWT NY recruiting efforts:

"We take great care and some pride in our recruitment program, and we have
the best reputation in the business for that reason."

---------------------------

Well, you can't have it both ways in this instance - either:

a) you're "desperate" and can't recruit "a decent porter" (so: your recruitment efforts have been a failure and a disaster),

or,

b) your recruitment efforts have been a source of "pride" and you have the "best reputation" in the business for recruiting.

---------------------------------------

In my opinion:

The true fact is that "recruitment" had nothing to do with the real reasons Patterson approved this false ad -- and promoted it for nine years to the media, resulting in an onslaught of false news stories and media in both trade publications and general media.

Getting himself media attention so he could finally get a novel of his on the NY Times Bestseller list was a big part of his motivation. And Patterson didn't mind stepping on the dreams of thousands of unsuspecting consumers to do it.

Getting this ad agency -- a publicly held company with a government client -- in a positive media light for free as often as possible, was also a big part of it. It seems to me the major hope was this media attention would create demand for the agency's depressed stock - depressed due to embezzling, is my belief.


This ad had nothing to do with finding new writers.

If I were writing a novel, I imagine a plot might be this:

A failed ad agency writer named Tim Chatterson conceals the embezzling of millions in ad agency stockholder profits by a corrupt Republican elected official / client, in exchange for this corrupt GOP official getting Chatterson on the NYT best seller list as a novelist for the first time in Chatterson's life.

Together, this criminal conspiracy dupes the media and the public for almost a decade with a bait and switch/ fake ad to create false positive media for both corrupt politician/embezzler and corrupt / failed ad agency writer Chatterson.

Because the military later buys millions of copies of Chatterson's novel after Chatterson has promoted the fake ad for years to benefit the corrupt politician who is now president, Chatterson finally gets on the best selling list and becomes the greatest selling novelist in the universe -- but he knows others know he is still a crappy writer. (His books were allegedly donated to the military, and he credits a sudden surge in book sales to his cheap, crappy tv commercials for his novels.)

School librarians begin getting rid of his books when they learn he deceived consumers with the fake ad, and told consumers they couldn't write, after having never given anyone a chance.

Those who covered up his fraud by pretending the fake ad was true finally come clean.

Chatterson loses his fortune because he is forced to submit to a remedy in equity by the courts -- and he becomes a pauper, while poor people scammed by his fake ad become rich.

A happy ending!

How does one get a book on the NY Times best seller list? There is a lot of information out there about this -- but I can't find the link I found a long time ago and really liked, so I will just post this one for now, which is actually pretty good, too.


https://scribemedia.com/get-best-seller-list/

Excerpt:

...And then William Blatty wrote a novel called The Exorcist (which has sold 10 million copies and became a famous movie). It sold more than enough copies to be high on the list for a long time, but initially did not appear on it.

He rightly claimed that the New York Times was intentionally excluding it for editorial reasons—the book was considered very controversial at the time—and claimed that their decision was costing him millions of dollars in sales.

He lost the case. Why?

Because the New York Times defense was that “the list did not purport to be an object compilation of information but instead was an editorial product.”

The New York Times won the case, in multiple rulings all the way up to the Supreme Court, based on the argument that the list is not supposed to be accurate, but reflects their judgment.

It is a valid legal argument…but it also means The New York Times admitted that their bestseller list is just a popularity contest, and not a list of best selling books.

In essence, they select who they will and won’t put in the “cool kids” club. It’s like high school all over again.

-------

The other article I liked talked about: how the NY Times wants the author to be a "leader" in their field, and other criteria along those lines, meaning: what tasks you have to do BESIDES selling your books. (I never knew you had to do ANYTHING besides selling your books!)

This morning I thought I made a huge mistake on this thread, but now, tonight, I realize my main point was actually correct.

There is a post on this thread I wrote quoting a Kirkus review regarding Patteron's claim in his memoir that he left graduate school when
he did because if he stayed he would be subject to the Vietnam draft.

Originally I thought: that claim of Patterson's is false, because those in school avoided the draft; those not were subject to the draft.
So, I concluded: the draft is NOT the reason he left graduate school.

This morning I learned men in graduate school did become subject o the draft.

But tonight I learned: that was due to a rule change in 1971.

Thus, if you were an eligible age male in graduate school -- or not in graduate school - after that 1971 draf rule change, you were subject to the draft (barring any other reason for your deferral).

And that is really the main point: he still did not avoid the draft by leaving graduate school when he did. Being out of graduate school, and leaving graduate school: he was STILL subject to the draft.

So, again, I conclude, correctly: the draft is NOT the reason he left graduate school.

I was correct on that point.

And, I think I know the real reason why he left graduate school when he did.(Because again: it had nothing to do with the draft.)

I will post a little more about this in another post after this one.

Here are two different ways Patterson publicly described his entry into advertising.
I believe: Only one of these ways is the truth. The other is a lie. Neither is in his memoir as I recall.

--------------------
In an October 2022 Investor's Business Daily article online, here is what he says: he obtained his first job thanks to a portfolio he wrote himself (without any help from a class or instructor):

https://www.investors.com/news/management/leaders-and-success/james-patterson-shares-path-from-hospital-to-selling-millions-books/

"But luck was with him. A friend heard the J. Walter Thompson advertising agency was hiring junior copywriters. It was seemingly a perfect start for a young man with two degrees in English. But the people doing the hiring wanted to see a portfolio. Patterson faced the dilemma: to get a job you need experience, but you can't get experience if no one will hire you.

Patterson solved that problem. "In 10 days I put together a portfolio, and they hired me," he said. "

------------------------
What is odd is that people do not put together a portfolio by themselves, and do not do so in "ten days." People take a college class to make a portfolio.

What is also odd about this article above is that Patterson told the NYT in a 2006 NYT article "Patterson Inc" that he left graduate school after only one year -- he did not cite nor claim any graduate degree. Now, above he claims he has "two degrees."

------------------
Prior to the "portfolio claim" above, Patterson was profiled in Feb 1985 in an Ad Age article titled "Patterson's Write-On Approach."

In that article it states at age 24 (in 1971), he took a "copy test" -- and that is how he got a job at the ad agency where he worked for 25 years.

I believe that 1985 Ad Age article is correct. That is how he entered advertising. The 2022 Investor's Daily article is wrong. He did not create a portfolio.

-------------

It is an important point: there are now two different stories in how he entered advertising, in terms of the larger story of his life.
(And, he omits both in his memoir, as I recall.)

It seems to me he has recently decided he does not want people to know he took a copy test. That may be because: a fake copy test ad in the NYT in 1984 is how he scammed thousands of consumers, by obtaining property from them under false pretenses, as people thought "Creative Directors" were reviewing their mailed in, written copy test submissions, as was promised by the ad.

In fact, Patterson was dumping these mailed submissions on his secretary's desk. She was the only one opening those mailed envelopes, reading the submissions with a rote read, as she had never even seen the ad, and then she would send out a required rejection letter. There was no Expert Opinion of Creative Directors reading these submissions -- even though that review was the benefit advertised in the ad.

Thousands of consumers were then misled to believe they did not have the talent to be a copywriter. In fact no one evaluated their work.

It was all a scam, just another of his scams. And it had to do with him fraudulently obtaining publicity for himself and media access, and other things, and of course money -- and corruption, in my opinion.. This scam went on for more than a decade, from 1984 to 1992 and beyond.

My belief is that his entire career as a best selling author began with scams. Had he not worked in advertising at that particular agency, and had he not been involved with these scams, I believe he might still find his books selling for $1 (one dollar) in the Dollar Bin at the Strand Bookshop in NYC -- which is where I found two of his books in March 1985.

Some of the one-star reviews really captured this book -
[link: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58231782-james-patterson-by-james-patterson?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=8kSmhFk6XQ&rank=5#CommunityReviews|
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/58231782-james-patterson-by-james-patterson?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=8kSmhFk6XQ&rank=5#CommunityReviews]

November 18, 2023
Of the 200 books I read this year, this might have been the one that I enjoyed least.

September 15, 2022
Too bad you can’t give less than a one star rating.

July 1, 2022
...Let me be clear that there was no art here, storytelling or otherwise, and listening to this in one sitting felt like being held hostage to the stream of consciousness of a senile old man....Save yourself and don't spend your hard-earned money on this....And know that if I could give this book zero stars, I would.