The Crucial Importance of Vetting a Potential Editor

 This blog post began life as a book review.

I bought a science fiction novel because its description intrigued me and it was on sale. (This is how I buy a great many ebooks. The rest usually come from a favorite author, like M.C.A. Hogarth, Grace Burrowes, V.E. Schwab, Lois McMaster Bujold, or my latest discovery, T. Kingfisher.) It didn't take long for me to discover that the book was exceptional -- in an unfortunate way. It was full of a great many errors, the kind that an edit should catch: mostly errors of grammar and vocabulary, but also continuity issues (not so much outright continuity contradictions as implausible shifts in attitude and expectation), ridiculous similes, and the occasional typo. I kept reading only because, underneath the absolute mess of the text, a somewhat interesting (if a bit derivative) story struggled to be told.

After a few chapters of this, I looked back at the front matter and saw that an individual editor was not only credited, but thanked for her impact on the finished product. The wording suggested a possibility even more unsettling than the editor's simple (if staggering) incompetence. Could the editor have taken a less problematic text and added some of the errors? Particularly where the misuse of words was concerned, I found it plausible that the author might have had a more limited vocabulary and/or a lack of confidence in her knowledge, and therefore accepted the editor's egregious substitutions.

I don't usually leave reviews that are primarily critical, though I'll mention what I see as weak points in a book I otherwise enjoyed. I was going to make an exception in the case of this book, as a warning to authors -- particularly new indie authors -- not to accept credentials or recommendations as a substitute for a test edit. Only a test edit can show whether a particular editor (a) is basically competent and (b) understands your authorial "voice" and will refine it rather than trying to replace it with some other style.

And then, the lawyer in me spoke up. (Yes, I'm an actual lawyer, though I'm quasi-retired.) If this review came to the attention of the book's editor, that editor might sue me for defamation (slander or libel, the latter for writings) -- even, possibly, for "defamation per se," which (among other things) covers defamation that could damage the subject's livelihood, and doesn't require proof of actual damages. I should be able to prevail in such a lawsuit, but it would be a waste of time and money, particularly if I did what prudent lawyers do when sued and hired some other lawyer to assist me or to be lead counsel.

So instead of leaving a review or otherwise identifying the book in question, I'm using this blog post to make my point more directly. For pity's sake, don't turn over your precious book to an editor who may let obvious errors go uncorrected or, worse, hand you back an unrecognizable Frankenstein's monster. (And if you answer this advice by pointing out that traditional publishers are unlikely to give most authors a choice of editor, you'll be quite right. Not every book that comes out of traditional publishers is well edited, let alone edited with sufficient care for the unique aspects of the author's voice. Indie authors, however, can vet editors.)

If I'd left a review, that review might have alerted the author to her predicament. I'm sorry not to have accomplished that. But who knows -- maybe the author and I will both be lucky, and she'll see this post and realize that it could apply to her.

Cover reveal! for fourth book in the Cowbird Creek series

 It's hard to type with crossed fingers, but here's hoping the beta reader feedback on What Wakes the Heart, the fourth book in my Cowbird Creek historical romance series, won't do major damage to my intended release timeline. If all goes reasonably well, this book will come out by mid-October of this year. So this seems like a good time to reveal the cover, previously shown only to family and my newsletter subscribers.

Just who are we looking at? Well, that's Susannah on the right, who will be the first schoolteacher for Cowbird Creek's first school. The fellow on the left goes by the name John, but before emigrating from Poland, he was Jan (pronounced much like "yawn").

In the weeks to come, I'll post some excerpts.

A warning about parental rights

 It occurred to me today that I should write down a concern I've had since Dobbs overruled Roe, even though it may never prove prescient. After all, one never knows when one will be hit by the proverbial truck.

The majority opinion in Dobbs stated emphatically that the decision had no affect on, and had nothing to do with, precedents (prior binding legal decisions) on issues other than abortion. The precedents in question, including those establishing the right to same-sex marriage and to use contraception, are, like Roe -- and more explicitly, Casey, which reaffirmed Roe decades later -- based on the idea of "substantive due process." The doctrine of substantive due process requires that one interpret the Fourteenth Amendment's phrase "due process" as involving more than simply process, or procedure, but also encompassing substantive rights -- or at least, the "fundamental" ones.

Troxel v. Granville, the Supreme Court case that for the first time explicitly protected fundamental parental rights in the concept of grandparent visitation, is also based on substantive due process, although the plurality opinion (there was no majority opinion) referred only to "the Due Process clause" without that revealing adjective. (Concurring and dissenting opinions did use the full phrase.)

Back to Dobbs. While Justice Thomas joined the majority opinion, he also wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he -- not for the first time -- criticized the notion of substantive due process, calling it "an oxymoron that lacks any basis in the Constitution." Thomas noted that no party to the Dobbs case had asked the Court to decide to reexamine all the Court's Fourteenth Amendment precedents. Therefore -- because this broader question was not presently before the Court -- he agreed that Dobbs didn't cast doubt on those other Fourteenth Amendment cases. But he stated that in future cases, the Court should (presumably, after this hint, with the proper briefing from the parties involved) reconsider all its substantive due process precedents. That would include Troxel, although Thomas did not include it in his list of examples.

Thomas went on -- again, not for the first time -- to mention the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause, which states that no state may make or enforce any law that would "abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." This clause was essentially rendered a dead letter by a series of late 19th century cases, at least as far as any rights not mentioned in the first eight amendments are concerned -- but it could be revived, particularly if "substantive due process" bites the dust. The question would then become just how many rights, other than those listed in the first eight amendments, are protected as "privileges or immunities." In his concurring opinion in Troxel, Thomas included a footnote stating that Troxel did not involve a challenge based on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, and thus did not provide an opportunity to reevaluate the meaning of that clause.

For what it's worth, I think that Justice Thomas's concurring opinion is more forthright on the subject of the non-abortion substantive due process cases than is the majority opinion. And I think that some enterprising grandparent (or other nonparent) will, sooner or later, challenge Troxel, and any state precedent based on Troxel, on the ground that its constitutional reasoning was flawed. (Note: some state supreme courts have found independent state constitutional grounds for protecting parental rights as much as, or more than, Troxel did.)

I therefore hope that in the meantime, those for whom a Supreme Court case gutting parental rights would be disastrous will prepare to fight for those rights using arguments other than substantive due process. These arguments should, I submit, include arguments in favor of rehabilitating the Privileges or Immunities Clause. I have the impression that plenty of scholars and historians have criticized the 19th century cases in question (perhaps appropriately known as the Slaughterhouse Cases) -- so arguments should not be too hard to come by. 

Whatever rights the Privileges or Immunities Clause might be held to protect, they are likely to include rights that (to quote some often-used language) are "objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition." Parental rights should qualify.

Finally, whether or not a parent's state Supreme Court has already found that its state constitution protects parental rights, any parent facing the need to bolster state law on the subject should prepare to make a state constitutional argument.

How artificial wombs could provide an acceptable replacement for abortion -- depending on who controls them

 The title of this post more or less summarizes the starting point for my latest near-future novel, Donation.

I almost published this book a couple of years ago. I decided against it because it focuses on the misuse of artificial womb technology, and I didn't want to give the impression that I opposed the development of such technology (or of new technologies in general). I did some rewriting to make clearer, I hope, that I was warning about why we should hesitate to give control of large numbers of unborn children to government, especially to centralized government.

Until the leak of a draft of the Dobbs opinion, I didn't really think we'd see the demise of Roe v. Wade any time soon. Yet here we are. So the book has ended up being pretty timely. And I want to say again -- to emphasize -- that if we don't fall into the trap this book describes, prenatal incubators that can shelter and nourish fetuses and even embryos could be a way for women in "red" states to retain, or regain, their reproductive freedom. 

No solution is perfect, including this one. Some women would be haunted by the thought that a child of theirs was out there somewhere, and worry about that child's well-being (unless some sort of followup was allowed). But some women find themselves regretting an abortion. If I were still in my reproductive years and unable to raise the child I was carrying, I would much rather chose the incubator, if I could.

A few thoughts about Roe v Wade and its demise, from a lawyer long interested in constitutional law

 A brief introduction, for those who've previously seen me post about novels and picture books: I'm also a lawyer with a decades-long interest in constitutional law. Before I started using this blog as a way to tell people about my books, I most often wrote on legal and political topics.

And now, I'm reverting to that subject matter to share a few thoughts about the Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

This event -- Roe being overturned -- vindicates the wisdom of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who noted the shaky legal (constitutional) basis of Roe and regretted that a political trend toward legalizing abortion had been interrupted by it. (And yes, in my view and according to many legal scholars and commentators, irrespective of their views on abortion, Roe had a shaky legal basis indeed.)That isn't to say some states wouldn't have continued prohibiting abortion right up to the present day, but we wouldn't have had decades of posturing for political benefit by people -- on each side -- who didn't have to face up to the reality behind the positions.

Also, if not for Roe, it's conceivable that some case(s) would have established a more solid constitutional basis for abortion rights. (See more on a related possibility below.) Theoretically, that could still happen -- the new Dobbs opinions could be distinguishable, in that no one involved in Dobbs made such alternate arguments. But I find it hard to imagine the Court bringing chaos to state abortion law again any time soon.

We may, however, see such alternate constitutional arguments made for other "privacy"/"substantive due process" rights such as gay marriage and parental decision-making authority. As for whether that will be necessary, I'm at least a little skeptical of the majority opinion's protestations that no such other rights are involved. As the Dobbs majority opinion notes, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe nineteen years later, relied on substantive due process. The cases recognizing gay marriage, parental decision-making rights, use of contraceptives, et cetera also shelter under that umbrella, in whole or in part. (Brief detour for legal explanation: the Fourteenth Amendment forbids states to "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This language has been stretched to include substantive rights, unrelated to procedure and not listed in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution, under the rubric "substantive due process," something of an oxymoron.)

Why do I doubt the majority's assertion that a decision on abortion, unique in destroying a potential human life, will have no repercussions for these other cases? Because the Dobbs decision doesn't actually rest on the fact that abortion destroys a potential human life. It does rely on various historical data specific to abortion -- but I consider it plausible to predict that future cases involving these other rights will, in examining comparable historical evidence, conclude that some or all of those rights are similarly without adequate constitutional foundation. I am not saying that will happen -- I haven't researched such history. But I don't entirely credit the way the majority brushes aside the possibility.

Justice Thomas's concurring opinion points out an important caveat. There may be other provisions, either in the Constitution as originally ratified or in one or more amendments, that could provide a basis for rights originally justified as aspects of substantive due process. Thomas mentions the Privileges or Immunities Clause, also part of the Fourteenth Amendment. He's consistently called attention to this clause over the years, so I doubt he's mentioning it simply as a hypothetical option.

Finally, on a less legalistic note, I'm glad to see that some anti-abortion activists are trying to make options and resources other than abortion widely available to pregnant women and to mothers, and aren't necessarily festooning such options and resources with religious slogans or indoctrination.

Official Release Day for near-future SF novel DONATION -- with one more excerpt

 It's the "release day" for Donation! That means that the Ingram Group, which handles distribution of the paperback edition to everyone except Amazon (where I put it up separately), has switched the book's status from "preorder" to "available." You can now order the paperback from such retailers as Barnes & Noble. If your local bricks-and-mortar store isn't carrying it, you can ask them to order it in.

Of course, the Kindle and paperback editions are still on Amazon.

I'm celebrating by posting one more excerpt. This one's from the point of view of Adam Brown, one of the adoptive parents the Bureau of Reproductive Safety has chosen to adopt Toni's child. It's perhaps unusually lively for an account of a lawyer preparing clients for a deposition. (A deposition is the pretrial examination of a witness who may or may not be called at trial, made under oath, but rarely in an actual courtroom.)

-------

When they had served their time in the waiting room and a receptionist admitted them to Mr. Voxsmith’s office, the lawyer immediately led them to a conference room whose furnishings struck Adam as unusual. The table was smooth, polished wood, an elegant oval, but the chairs were straight-backed wood with no arms and less than ample seats. Mr. Voxsmith waited until they had seated themselves, rather gingerly in Adam’s case, before he explained. “The plaintiff’s lawyer may decide to make you uncomfortable. I didn’t want it to take you by surprise, and you can practice ignoring it.”

Adam practiced ignoring the chair while the lawyer ran through some basic instructions. Common sense, mostly: don’t volunteer information; don’t answer unless you know the answer of your own knowledge; don’t guess what a question means; don’t lose your temper; tell the truth. As to that last, Mr. Voxsmith elaborated. “If you try to color the facts, let alone outright lie, then you have to remember what you said. That’s hard when you’re nervous, and lawyers are very good at making people nervous. And unless you’re habitual liars, lying is emotionally exhausting, especially if you have to do it over and over. And if you get caught — well, to use the precise legal phrase, you’re toast.

“Let’s move on from physical discomfort to other sorts. I’m going to start with some personal questions. I’ll point at whichever of you should answer — we’ll save time by skipping the Mr. This and Ms. That. Ready? Here we go.”

The lawyer pointed at Grace. “How long did you try to conceive naturally before giving up?” Then he looked not at Grace but at Adam, assessing his reaction. Adam had shifted in his chair and clenched one fist. The lawyer lifted an eloquent eyebrow; Adam forced himself to sit still with hands open on his lap.

Meanwhile Grace had started answering the question. “We tried for four years. But really, we’ve never stopped trying.”

Mr. Voxsmith, to Adam’s astonishment, took a kazoo out of his pocket and blew on it twice. “This is my buzzer. When you hear it, you know you screwed up somehow. Ms. Allen, you made two mistakes. You contradicted yourself, and you gave the enemy some ammunition. You wouldn’t necessarily find that out until the trial, when you’re on the stand and opposing counsel brings up that statement in cross-examination, asking why you’re insisting on seizing this poor woman’s baby if you haven’t given up on your efforts to conceive.”

Grace gulped and said, “What should I have said, then?”

The lawyer wagged his finger. “No, no. I can’t tell you what to say. That’s coaching the witness.” He turned toward Adam. “Mr. Brown, do you have any suggestions?”

Adam thought for a moment. “She could say that we tried for four years before deciding it just wasn’t going to happen. That’s true, even though we can’t help hoping a little bit anyway.”

The lawyer did not reply; apparently, the absence of a kazoo blast was sufficient approval. He pointed at Adam next. “Describe the methods you used in your attempt to conceive naturally.”

Adam couldn’t help staring. “Can they really ask me that?”

“They might. That or something else equally obnoxious. Partly in the hope of throwing you off balance. So — give.”

Adam gritted his teeth, then had to relax his jaw to answer. “Once we decided we needed help, we used two positions recommended by our fertility specialist.”

The finger stayed pointed at Adam. “Did you get a second opinion?”

“Ah — no.” As Adam opened his mouth to say more, out came the kazoo again. BLAT!

“Don’t guess at a followup question and then try to answer it.” Now it was Grace’s turn again. “What percentage of your annual income did you spend on your effort to conceive during those four years?”

Grace was good with numbers, both remembering them and calculating them. “Approximately fifteen percent.” How should Adam answer the same question? “I don’t know,” probably. Except now he did — he trusted Grace. But no, he wasn’t supposed to answer out of anything but firsthand knowledge.

Still Grace’s turn. “And what is that annual income?”

Adam blinked at Grace’s answer. Were they really doing that well?

Back to Adam. “Did you consider spending more?”

Had they? “I don’t remember.”

No kazoo. Good. Here came the next question, for Grace. And a gleam in the lawyer’s eye suggested it would be the nastiest one yet. “When you applied to adopt, did you anticipate that you would be depriving an unwilling mother of her baby?”

Grace’s eyes went wide in distress. The lawyer blew a short, somehow softer note on the kazoo. “Of course you didn’t, and there’s no need to hesitate. You can just say a businesslike ‘no.’ Remember the plaintiff, the donor, was willing. She’s not claiming anyone ambushed her and drugged her. She came in of her own accord, signed the papers voluntarily, lay on a table in a procedure room instead of jumping up and running out.”

He looked back and forth between the two of them. “Getting tired? Well, we’ve only just started. So the night before the real thing, get plenty of rest. Eat hearty, if you can, the morning of the deposition, but nothing that’ll upset your stomach. And wear comfortable clothes. We want you focused, not distracted. Focused, but as close to relaxed as possible. If there are activities that help you relax, plan on doing them the night before or even that morning.”

Adam started to fight the smile that came, and then decided not to bother. He turned to Grace and winked. “I think we can manage that.”

A smile lit her face, and she winked back. The lawyer waited ten whole seconds before interrupting them, kazoo at the ready. “Back to work.”

-------

And here, one more time, is my favorite 3D mockup of the cover (from KAM Design).

A third excerpt from new near-future SF novel DONATION

I wish those in the United States a good Memorial Day. The usual phrase is "Happy Memorial Day," but that feels a little odd to me for a day of remembering and honoring those who gave their lives in war. When my father was alive, I'd call him to say I was thinking of his two lost Army buddies, probably the closest male friends (aside from family) he had in his life. Now, I imagine that much to his surprise (he was a lifelong atheist), he meets them every Memorial Day for a picnic and tells them about his long and rewarding life. 

Which would make an amazing historical novel, though I don't know that I'll ever tackle it. For now, back to the latest book I did write.

A quick recap: unexpectedly pregnant and wholly unprepared to deal with that pregnancy, Toni Greene "donates" her unborn child, its adoptive parents to be chosen by the federal Bureau of Reproductive Safety. Now she has regrets, and comes to talk to her lawyer mother about whether there is anything she can do about them.

-------

Toni was too keyed up for cookies or cocoa. Mom did a double-take at her refusal. Then she got a twinkle in her eye, waved Toni to an armchair so comfy she would almost have to relax, and dug into the pantry for a bottle that proved to be sherry.

Toni had to laugh. “All right, but give me one of the small glasses!”

Mom chuckled and handed her a glass that would hold about four thimblefuls, pouring the sherry almost to its brim. Mom’s own glass was around twice the size, but she filled it only about halfway. She settled into the matching armchair, took a sip, rolled it around in her mouth, and swallowed it with a satisfied sigh before asking, “So what’s shaking the earth where you stand, this afternoon?”

Toni took a tiny sip of the sherry and put it down again. “This isn’t the answer to that question, but I thought you’d want to know that I went to see Andy.”

Mom did a subtle double-take and then beamed. “I’m so glad. The family hasn’t been the same with the Denim Twins hardly talking to each other.”

“Which was my fault.” Just another of her short-sighted, wrongheaded decisions.

Mom tilted her head and mock-frowned. “Hey, no beating up on my daughter! . . . So back to my question. What’s on your mind?”

Now that she was here, her idea seemed hopeless, pointless. She’d already been told as much. Mom looked at her and put aside her playful manner. “Honey, what is it? Just talk.” She smiled just a little. “Say whatever you practiced saying in the car, no matter how it sounds now that you’re here.”

Toni picked up her sherry and chugged it. “What if I wanted to get my baby back? Adopt it, or whatever else they’d call it?”

Mom sat back, nodding her head and body like a sage on a mountaintop. “I wondered whether that was it. Can you tell me how you came to the point of asking? What’s happened, or changed, since you made your original decision?”

Toni pulled her legs up and wrapped her arms around them. “Nothing has really happened, and nothing has really changed. Except me, I guess. I’ve changed. I keep dreaming about the baby. About still being pregnant, or about holding her — I have this feeling it’s a girl — after she’s born.” She laughed again, shakily this time. “I even dreamed about changing her diaper. And it was such a mess! It went everywhere. But when she was changed, I kissed her forehead.” She was crying now. “I kissed her. And then I woke up, and she was gone. Gone from inside me, gone from my life. And it hurt. It hurts.”

Mom sighed. “I’m sorry, sweetheart. I’d hoped this wouldn’t happen. There’s no way to know, really, whether it will. It used to be worse, though, before the incubators. Some women would have those regrets after an abortion. You know how keen the loss is that you’re feeling. Imagine if it came with guilt, as well.”

Toni flinched. “But — it does. Not the guilt of having, having ended the baby. But the guilt of giving it up. Of giving up on it. Abandoning it to strangers.”

Mom gazed at her, searching her face. “Even loving strangers, presumably better prepared to care for a child? Not that I wouldn’t help, one way and another – and I imagine your father would too, once someone tells him what’s going on – but the Bureau doesn’t approve adoptive parents unless they’re in a significantly better position than you are. And those parents would give thanks every day for the gift you gave them.”

Toni gritted her teeth. “Now you’re making me feel guilty for feeling guilty! For having second thoughts. Thanks a bunch.” Though at least she’d stopped crying.

“I just want to know you’ve thought things through.” She didn’t add this time, but she might just as well have.

Toni slumped in her chair. “I don’t guess I have, not completely. But . . . I could manage. Somehow. I could get an actual job, something reliable. Even if it was a job I couldn’t do from home, or bring the baby to, I’d see her before and after work, every day. She’d still be my daughter.”

--------

The paperback goes into wide release in two days! In the meantime, though, you can buy either the paperback or the Kindle edition on Amazon. (And if you go to either link, you can see the cool cover KAM Design made for it.) I'll post one more excerpt on Release Day.