Can't do it now; how about tomorrow?
________________________________
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
________________________________
From: Barrett Brown [barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 12:26 AM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: greggatghc@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Proposal
Sounds good; do you want to give me a ring now or talk tomorrow?
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 11:23 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>> wrote:
Hey, guys--lots of questions here, matters of context etc. I think we should address this portion in detail before we step into new material--how's that sound to you guys?
Best,
Dan
________________________________
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
________________________________
From: Daniel Conaway
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 10:18 PM
To: 'barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>'
Cc: 'greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>'
Subject: Re: Proposal
My apologies--why don't you hold off till I get you notes, which I'll try to do this weekend.
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 07:36 PM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: Gregg Housh <greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>
Subject: Re: Proposal
Daniel-
Do you want me to finish up the rewrite or wait for your notes on the portion I sent you last week?
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com><mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Sounds good. Gregg, do you want to try to talk tomorrow sometime so I can get a few more details from you regarding Chanology, individual actors that bear mentioning in the proposal, and your earlier intrigues as a hacker?
On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>> wrote:
Yes, absolutely. I havent worked my way through it completely, but it feels crisp and clear. Im hoping to come back to you with some editorial notes over the weekend, if thats OK?
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Gregg Housh [mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>]
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 4:23 PM
To: Barrett Brown
Cc: Daniel Conaway
Subject: Re: Proposal
I think this is much closer to what we were thinking, what are your thoughts Daniel?
The part about the beginning of chanology needs some edits, but we can work on getting the facts a bit straighter as we go.
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com><mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>>> wrote:
This is the bulk of the new intro - about seven pages - which would eventually be followed by a revised version of the chapter descriptions I provided earlier. At the end of this, I'm going to add in another page or two with Gregg introducing himself a bit more and going over his own background as a hacker, but first I'm going to need to talk to Gregg again about that when he's able to do so. Gregg, can we do that tomorrow? Another thing that we decided was needed, which is to provide a sense of some of the personalities involved, will go in after that, and I need to see what Gregg can provide along those lines in addition to what I have, so that's something the two of us will need to go over by phone as well.
In the meantime, Daniel, let me know if this is closer to what you're looking for in terms of the style and format.
***
On the morning of February 5th, 2011, Karen Burke, director of marketing and communications for the intelligence contracting firm HBGary, made an exciting announcement to employees regarding an apparent media coup that had been pulled off by their closely-aligned sister firm, HBGary Federal. Last night The Financial Times published a story about HBGary Federal CEO Aaron Barr's social media analytics research on the Anonymous Group, she wrote. Pasted below was the text of the article in question, in which it is asserted that Barr had managed to discover information on the co-founder of Anonymous - said by Barr to be a user called Q - as well as alleged identifying details of a number of important members, including Owen, whom Barr also identified as a leader.
We should expect more media interest as this story receives wider attention, added Burke.
As the day proceeded, HBGary's executives worked together via e-mail to best leverage that attention. Around 11:00 am, HBGary CEO Greg Hoglund weighed in. I think these guys are going to get arrested, it would be interesting to leave the soft impression that Aaron is the one that got them, and that without Aaron the Feds would have never been able to get out of their own way, Hoglund advised. So, position Aaron as a hero to the public. At this point they are going to get arrested anyway. Anonymous, after all, had come under increasing scrutiny from a number of government agencies after the collective attacked websites belonging to Visa, Mastercard, and Paypal, taking them offline for hours. Just last month, 40 alleged participants in the U.S. had been raided by the FBI, who seized servers, computers, and even cell phones in what seemed to be preparation for forthcoming arrests. With the investigation presumably coming quickly towards it logical conclusion, there would be plenty of credit to go around, earned or otherwise.
The principals of the two firms continued to devise their media strategy for the rest of the morning. Then, that afternoon, a bizarre press release entitled Anonymous Concedes Defeat suddenly appeared at various venues used by the collective to convey its messages, including an account on the user-driven blog Daily Kos. Barr, it was sarcastically noted, had made his discoveries in large part by an infiltration of our entirely secret IRC server anonops.ru<http://anonops.ru><http://anonops.ru> and in particular our ultra-clasified channels #opegypt, #optunisia, and, of course, #reporters, which itself is the most secret of all.... As Mr. Barr has discovered in spite of our best efforts, Anonymous was founded by Q last Thursday at the guilded Bilderberg Hotel after a tense meeting with one Morrowind mod collection, which itself includes the essential Morrowind Comes Alive 5.2 as well as several retexturing packs, all of which seem to lower one's FPS...- the nonsense continued for several paragraphs.
It seemed a flippant response in light of what Barr had on the group. They still don't get it. They think all I know is their irc names!!!!!, Barr wrote to his company colleagues as they tried to determine what to make of it all. I know their real fing names.
I'll look at the blogpost, replied Burke, but I am concerned about escalating the 'brawl'. They seemed freaked out on the Daily Kos post.
No they are not freaked out, Barr replied. They don't get it...Greg will tell you. They think I have nothing but a heirarchy [sic] based on IRC aliases! as 1337 as these guys are suppsed [sic] to be they don't get it. I have pwned them! :)
Barr's assessment of the cards he held was understandable. Over a few months the longtime security contractor had spent a great amount of time on the internet relay chat server from which much of Anonymous' work was conceived, coordinated, and executed. The server wasn't secret by any means; as Anonymous had noted in that day's press release, there was even a channel for those reporters who sought to better understand the group, and with a few exceptions, anyone could join the various channels on which specific operations were discussed. After all, participants tended to hide their IP addresses by way of various means and used screen names to hide their identities. But Barr - who was fast gaining a reputation as an innovator in the field of information operations - had conceived a complicated plan involving the comparison of log in times, conversational clues, and information gleaned from social networking accounts in such a way as to form a data set from which could be determined, with 80 percent accuracy, the real names and locations of notable Anonymous participants, including the movement's leadership. With the hard work nearly finished, it was now time to win the notoriety that was his due and perhaps a bit more, as per Hoglund's suggestion.
But in the meantime, there was bound to be some splashback. Barr noticed suspicious activity directed at the server which the two companies shared. Our website is getting probed pretty heavily, he wrote to Hoglund and other principals at 8:00 that same evening. You might want to check hbgary.com<http://hbgary.com><http://hbgary.com/>. Whatever was coming, HBGary could certainly handle it. In fact, Barr could likely prevent it he would just have a talk with the leader of Anonymous.
The leader in question, Barr had come to discover through his research, was a fellow named Benjamin Spock de Vries. In his capacity as the supreme head of the Anonymous collective, de Vries had cleverly opted to go by several online names to confuse authorities. To some, he was Commander X. To others, he was known merely as Q. Barr was the only one who had discovered the truth that all three were one in the same. He even knew the fellow's Facebook account. So that night, using his own Facebook account he himself had created in order to better to infiltrate and assess the mysterious world of Anonymous, Barr approached the collective's co-founder and acting leader in hopes of convincing him falsely that he meant no harm to the organization.
CommanderX. This is my research. I will be posting a response shortly to the DailyKos post. I am not going to release names I am merely doing security research to prove the vulnerability of social media so please tell Chris or Jules or whoever else is hitting our site to stop.
Commander X/Q/de Vries played coy, claiming that any such thing was not my doing. But Barr knew better, and continued to make his case. I am done with my research...doing my slides...I am not out to get u guys. My focus is on social media vulnerabilities only. So please tell the folks there that I am not out to get u guys... if you have to just tell folks that anon can not afford to attack another target within the US for now...blah blah...that should be enough to keep them off me.
The exchange went on for two hours, and in the end around 11:30 that evening Barr had even convinced de Vries to meet up with him in San Francisco when he came out to do his talk on the vulnerabilities by which he managed to determine so much about the group's members. The conversation having gone well, Barr and HBGary would now be safe from any serious retaliation on the part of Anonymous, whose leader didn't appear to consider his research much of a threat. Barr forwarded the conversation to Hoglund, who had earlier expressed some concern about potential retaliation. So I decided to privately poke at the leader :), he summarized.
The next day Superbowl Sunday, incidentally - Nokia's chief adviser on risk and security, Jussi Jaakonaho, received a message from Hoglund's HBGary e-mail account:
im in europe and need to ssh into the server. can you drop open up firewall and allow ssh through port 59022 or something vague? and is our root password still 88j4bb3rw0cky88 or did we change to 88Scr3am3r88 ? thanks
Jaakonaho - who helped to administer Hoglund's website rootkit.com<http://rootkit.com><http://rootkit.com>, which sat on the same server used by both HBGary and HBGary Federal - helpfully reset the password and otherwise took steps to provide temporary access to Hoglund, who said he had to rush to a meeting. Later, though, Jaakonaho noticed an unusual degree of traffic coming from the server. Did you open something running on high port? he asked Hoglund in another e-mail at around 2:00 pm. But he received no response. Likely, he was as of yet unaware that HBGary's website had been replaced by a written message accompanied by a picture of man in a suit, standing in front of a globe, his head a question mark.
The message began, This domain has been seized by Anonymous under section #14 of the rules of the internet. At the bottom was a link to a downloadable file containing tens of thousands of e-mails that had just been stolen from the company's server.
Aaron Barr had not been speaking to the leader of Anonymous. And Jaakonaho had not been speaking to Greg Hoglund.
***
Three years earlier, a couple of friends and I hit upon a great idea for a troll.
A woman who had left the Church of Scientology movement had leaked a video clip in which Tom Cruise, the group's preeminent celebrity spokesman, gives one of the most bizarre and rambling addresses one could imagine. But every time she tried to put it up on YouTube so that others could see just how insane is the internal rhetoric of the international cult, the Church would file a Digital Millenium Copywrite Act notice to YouTube, the administrators of which would remove it. So we started posting the clip up ourselves. A DMCA is easy enough to send off, but it takes a bit of time and effort to locate the material one is attempting to censor. By continually reposting the clip, we could at least annoy the Church, if nothing more.
Finally, the video found a permanent home. Unlike YouTube, Gawker refused to bow down to Scientology's expansive legal department; in fact, they even posted the clip on their main page along with a message to the effect that they would never take it down. Better yet, the Church's attempts to censor the video via litigation had itself become a story, thereby bringing further attention to the matter. Internet censorship, along with its most notorious practitioner, had suffered a blow. But it wasn't enough of a blow, in my view. So we decided to bring in Anonymous.
At that point, what was called Anonymous existed mostly as an idea a sort of meta-joke drawing upon a subset of internet culture that had emerged from the popular image board 4chan.org<http://4chan.org><http://4chan.org>. By tradition, few bothered to fill out the name tab when leaving messages; by default, the vast majority of messages one would see in the thread were designated as having been posted by Anonymous. The joke, then, was that a glance at such message threads might leave a casual observer with the impression that some prolific fellow named Anonymous was engaged in an eternal conversation with himself. And to the extent that such an observer lingered on 4chan's most popular board, /b/ - the random board which had come to incubate a rich, nihilistic internal culture with a language and symbology all its own that observer would find this Anonymous fellow rather frightening. He was, after all, the collective id of unknown thousands of internet users who had come to live at least a part of their lives in an undifferentiated and irreverent mob.
Of course, there was another reason I thought of Anonymous. To the extent that it was known outside of the subculture in which it existed, it was mostly in the context of the raids in which its participants would engage from time to time. Historically, such mass actions had targeted everything from forums to online games to random Myspace users. Some were clever and resulted in no particular harm for the targets other than inconvenience; others were extraordinarily cruel; many were a mix of both. But the interesting thing was how unprecedented it all was, and how much potential for good. Here was a mass of people who could be convinced to unleash an online onslaught at a moment's notice, one that drew upon the collective skills and resources of tens of thousands of people. It was the closest thing to an army that the internet had.
A few days after the Tom Cruise video was first taken down by YouTube, my friends and I posted a message to 4chan, which at the time was the central node of the Anonymous culture. We also started a YouTube account called Church0fScientology, with which we released a short but well-produced little video entitled Message to Scientology, in which an electronic voice read a script we'd collaborated on. Noting the cult's suppression of internal dissent, its litigious nature, and its long history of attempted internet censorship, we then got to the point. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind - for the laughs - we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form.
Happy with our work, we put up a couple more links on 4chan while also distributing instructions on joining an internet relay chat server we'd set up for those who wished to join us in planning ways in which to get the truth out about how the Church operates. With luck, the video might receive several thousand views, and perhaps a few hundred Anons would assist in whatever campaign we decided on. We'd been thinking that a couple of protests could be managed, for instance.
The next day, I was running some errands in my car when I got a call from my girlfriend, who had been keeping an eye on the server.
You need to come home, she told me.
I'll be back in a little while. I've got-
No. You need to come home now.
Our server had been overwhelmed by the tens of thousands of people logging on. The video, meanwhile, had gotten a hundred thousand hits in one day; in a few more it had received millions. Within a few weeks, embarrassing Church documents were being stolen and distributed across the internet; Scientology websites were being brought down by distributed denial of service attacks; and protests were being held in front of Scientology centers in hundreds of cities across the world (three years later, in fact, Anonymous still holds such protests in major cities each and every week). For Scientology, it was a devastating blow from which the Church has never recovered.
For Anonymous, it was the beginning of a transition from a largely inert mass content to launch pointless pranks to a geopolitical force in the habit of striking at dictatorships, corporations, and intelligence agencies even to such an extent that NATO recently put out a report citing the necessity of persecuting its members in the interests of security.
To outsiders, it has long appeared a self-organizing force, amorphous and spontaneous a non-organization without leadership. Many who have self-identified as Anonymous for years and been active in some of its campaigns see it in the same way. But for three years, there have been accusations of hidden centers of control, known only to a few; shifting internal alliances among key members with varying agendas; and disinformation put out in such a way as to frustrate attempts at analysis by those who look too closely at those who pull the strings. Some of those accusations have involved me personally. And many of them are entirely true.
***
February 7th, 2011, a day after the HBGary attack. The previous evening, various media outlets had been alerted to the fact that the security firm's servers had been overtaken. Another Anonymous press release had come out, asserting that Aaron's notes on Anonymous had been entirely flawed. That document, along with a portion of the 70,000 e-mails stolen from the firm the previous day, was now available to the public and the press.
Now, contact had been made with Greg Hoglund's wife, Penny, president of HBGary, during which she had been directed to log on to the same internet relay chat server, Anonops, that Barr had spent the last few months infiltrating. The entrepreneurial couple connected from their home.
heyguise: just type to say hi penny
heyguise: we are your friendly neighborhood legion, we dont bite.
Penny: HI it's me
Sabu: penny when you situate yourself we have some questions
The grilling commenced.
Sabu: penny. before we get started--know that we have all email communication between you and everyone in hbgary. so my first question would be why would you allow aaron to sell such garbage under your company name?
Penny: I did know he was doing research on social media and the problem associated with it, the ease of pretending to be one of you.
In fact, she had known a bit more and Greg, who was sitting next to her and would eventually take the keyboard, had known most everything. But this wasn't yet clear to the assembled Anons, only a few of whom had started reading through the e-mail correspondence. Of those e-mails, incidentally, those designated as belonging to HBGary Federal figures Ted Vera and Aaron Barr were already being seeded - made available for download. Penny and Greg were hoping to prevent those of the parent company, HBGary proper, from being released as well.
After nearly an hour, there came about a consensus as to how such a compromise might be reached.
Penny: You want me to fire Aaron and donate to bradley mannings fund?
Sabu: yes penny
heyguise: aaron should maybe donate some thing too
evilworks: kidneys
For his part, Aaron Barr was at that moment on the phone with the same Anonymous operative who had directed Penny to the IRC.
I never planned to sell the data to the FBI, Barr was asserting. The FBI called me. This wasn't exactly true; as the e-mails would reveal, Barr had been trying for an audience not only with the FBI but also the OSD for weeks and enlisted several of his contacts to help bring this about. The person on the other line didn't know this yet. So he let Barr explain how it was that his attempts to discover the identifies of Anonymous participants had been intended merely as background for a talk he was to give at a San Francisco event the following week.
Even if I get a portion of Anon folks right... it just proves the point that if I can get even partial right on Anon, social media is a problem. And that's what I'm talking about. It's not about prosecuting Anon. It's about am I, am I using the publicity that Anonymous is getting? Absolutely. Just like anybody does, just like Anon does and everyone else does you use the publicity that's out there in order to get your message heard.
Right. No, I understand that, said the voice on the other line.
I'm running... I'm running a business. I'm not trying to, you know, attack Anon I'm not releasing and have not released publicly any names.
Let me ask you a question real quick, replied the voice. Sorry to interrupt you, let me ask you a question. Did you ever supply Anonymous with the research you had gathered, like before you started talking to the press about it, for instance?
Barr gave a slight pause. No.
Okay. So you didn't - were you planning on doing that at any point?
Who would I provide it to? Who would I provide it to?
Uh, the people in the IRC that you think are leaders. Like Q and Owen. That might have been a good start.
Barr was unable to come up with a response. And the conversation was being recorded. Within 24 hours, it would be in the hands of the press.
But this was the least of the early public relations advantages Anonymous held over HBGary. Hoglund's e-mail to the effect that the firm should leave the soft impression that Aaron is the one that got them had already been provided to a Bloomberg reporter who thereafter reached Karen Burke to ask her for comment. Burke told the reporter that she didn't know anything about it. Shortly afterwards, the same reporter was supplied by Anonymous with the e-mail heading, which showed that not only had the e-mail been sent to Burke herself just a couple days prior, but she had even responded to it. Karen was really pissed yesterday when I called again about the email, the reporter noted the next day. She basically hung up on me. That Anonymous operatives were receiving intelligence on their enemies from the media should be indicative of the chummy regard in which the collective was coming to be held by reporters.
At some point over the next few days, HBGary hired a communication crisis specialist. But by that time, several outlets had already revealed that HBGary Federal, along with the more established contracting firms Palantir and Berico, had sought to provide their combined information war capabilities to private clients, including Bank of America. The nature of those services including cyber attacks on Wikileaks and a clandestine campaign of harassment against one of that organization's most effective supporters, Glenn Greenwald were such that Rep. Hank Johnson called for a Congressional investigation. But Rep. Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, shot down any such inquiry, asserting that it is the role of the Justice Department to determine whether a criminal investigation is warranted.
But as was also shown in the e-mails, it was the Justice Department itself that had originally made the introductions when Bank of America first sought out a firm capable of executing a clandestine disruption of Wikileaks. Unsurprisingly, no official investigation ever occurred. And thus it was that Anonymous decided to carry out its own investigation, and by its own methods.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>> wrote:
Thanks, Barrettlooking forward to it.
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com><mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>>]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2011 7:32 PM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: Gregg Housh
Subject: Re: Proposal
Finishing up the revisions on this now; should have something back to you by tomorrow.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>> wrote:
Good deal, guys. 3:45 (2:45 central) it is. Ill do the dialing
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com><mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>>]
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:52 PM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: Gregg Housh
Subject: Re: Proposal
Daniel-
Yes, we had a chance to speak on Friday. I'm available after 2:45 central time. Gregg?
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>> wrote:
Gregg & Barrett,
Were you guys able to speak Friday? Sorry I was out of commission, but I'm available today up till about 4:15. Let me know if there's a good time to kibbitz. Thanks.
Best,
Dan
________________________________
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
________________________________
From: Barrett Brown [barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com><mailto:barriticus@gmail.com<mailto:barriticus@gmail.com>>]
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 5:10 PM
To: Gregg Housh
Cc: Daniel Conaway
Subject: Re: Proposal
Howdy-
Good to meet you, Daniel, and thanks for the comments. What you've put forward here is pretty straightforward, although as you say, we'll probably need to meet up via phone to discuss details. Here are my initial thoughts:
1. Regarding mechanics, I do think the best way to do this is to have Gregg be the narrator, and it should be reasonably easy to present this to be the case within the proposal now that I know you want that explicitly conveyed. Inserting his background as a hacker who'd dealt with the system as well as his early interest in Anonymous and a more detailed account of how he helped to launch Chanology should help to do that, and in fact that might start after whatever initial Anonymous anecdote we begin with.
2. As for the other personalities whom we'll get close to in the book, that's something Gregg will have to decide on to the extent that they're people he worked with behind the scenes, and the two of us can go over that via phone. Of course there are others who are a bit more "out there" in the sense of being known to many Anons, or who neither of us have any problem writing about, that can go in regardless. Gregg and I can talk about that soon.
3. Overall, I think I'm more clear on what you want now; as you say, I was taking this in a certain direction simply because the subject seemed to warrant it, but I certainly understand that the purpose of the document is to present necessary info to the gatekeepers.
Gregg, I'll go ahead and call you in a bit; Daniel, please let us know if you're available to speak for a bit today.
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:06 AM, Gregg Housh <greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
Hey Barrett,
I got this back from Daniel and finally had the time to read it. I am forwarding it on and CC'ing him so we can open up a discussion.
Gregg
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>>>
Date: Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:21 PM
Subject: Proposal
To: "greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>>" <greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>>>
Hey, Gregg-
Just left you a message... I've read the ANONYMOUS proposal three times, and there's an energy to it that's alive and revolutionary (in some sense anyway)-but as a working document with which we sell what the book is, especially to dumb-ass editors (like me) who know a little about Anonymous and maybe think they know a little about the culture from whence Anonymous emerged-THINK they do, but don't, in fact-this is way too esoteric, written too much from the presumption of an insider's knowledge... and simply won't get us the level of interest among as many publishers that I feel is inherent in the subject matter itself. This is an IMPORTANT story, and we want publishers to want to envision this book as a publishing event, a bestseller. And we have quite a lot of work to do before we have a proposal that'll get us that level of enthusiasm.
Don't get me wrong: I like Barrett's energy, and it's clear that he's no white boy by the side of the road (like me)-by which I mean, it's obvious that Anonymous is in his blood. And he's clearly smart enough, in about sixty different spheres, to write this book-and that's how many spheres one would have to be smart in. FURTHERMORE, what I am fundamentally is an editor myself, and so by no means was I expecting this to be a finished, saleable document right off the bat. I'm a roll-up-my-sleeves guy, as we've discussed before.
But conceptually, we're going to need to take a different tack here. As I was reading this, again and again I found myself saying, WTF? And: Just give me the facts, already. For one thing, this doesn't even pretend to address, on a mechanical level, how the story will be told. For example: who are you in this book? I know this book isn't about you, obviously-but aren't you the tour-guide, so to speak, the everyman, the touchstone we come back to after forays into one exotic story and another? AND: what's the progression of events? And: are there other characters here (well-disguised, of course) who will be explicated, whose individual personalities and motivations we'll get close enough to so that this thing becomes human not just in terms of what it does but also in terms of who's doing it. And: what about the mechanics of this? Do people meet, ever, in the physical plane? Is it all done via chat-room? Do they know each other? Can they not know each other? Must they be as suspicious of each other as they are of the various governments and agencies and institutional hypocrisies to which they are opposed? And: will we get to see, in the way of a narrative nonfiction / whodunit, the actual in-real-time unfolding of an Anonymous event?
These are just a few of the things that occur to me as the sort of questions that have to be answered in a book proposal.
I can see where the temptation, in such a fascinating and dimensionless (or should I say deca-dimensional) world, to try to have the voice of the piece represent its weird & otherworldly texture... But in fact what's needed is the opposite-what's needed is a tour-guide willing to say, OK, you clueless-fuck reader, I'm going to pretend it doesn't annoy me, how stupid you are, and I'm going to explain all this as though I'm talking to a child. No-"child" is all wrong, because children actually have such great cranial plasticity, they can visualize almost anything. So let's rephrase: what's needed is a tour guide willing to pretend not to be annoyed by how stupid his theoretical reader is, who is going to explain all this as though he's talking to a middle-aged half-wit. Like me.
I don't want to be too lame here, but the editors we'll be submitting this to will require that we take a slightly more pedestrian/mechanistic approach to this thing, if they're going to be able to convince their bosses, the ones holding the purse strings, that this story is going to be grokkable to the great unwashed who live within shopping distance of the Mall of America (for example). And while there's quite a lot of range in terms of how a proposal is executed, how much personality it has, etc., there's some real basic shit that every proposal's GOT to have if it's going to garner serious interest from major publishers. Above all, it's got to leave no questions unanswered, HAS to let its readers in on the joke-in other words, it's got to take the reader by the hand.
Back in February I sent you three sample book proposals; I'm resending them now, because it's important that we're on the same page about what a proposal needs to have. I'm not saying they're the best proposals ever written, but they're all good examples of the basic beats that all publishers expect for narrative nonfiction they're going to consider paying more than $15,000 for. (Confidentially, of course, all three of these proposals were sold for six-figure advances.)
I'm also including my own marginal notes on the first draft of the Anonymous proposal-and I confess that I stopped with editorial marginalia about halfway through, because line edits are about the micro when, in fact, we need to take a top-down look at how we're approaching this... I'm including these notes anyway, though, in hopes that they reveal some particularity in terms of the sort of thing I was tripping over.
Obviously, there's a lot to talk about here-maybe you and Barrett and I could get on the phone together and brainstorm a bit? What do you suggest?
Best,
Dan
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Daniel Conaway
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:10 PM
To: 'Gregg Housh'
Cc: gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>>
Subject: Sample proposals
Importance: High
Gregg-
Attached (for your perusal, confidentially) are three nonfiction proposals. They're all memoirs with VERY strong narrative thru-lines; I select them as examples because your book, too, will want to have a strong dramatic narrative.
STREET FREAK is the story of a Lehman Brothers trader who was there at the '08 collapse; but the story really is a memoir about his own mental health struggles that were going on throughout that time. Real time events (and personalities) are mingled into his personal story.
HONOR AMONG THIEVES is the as-told-to memoir of Myles Connor, a world-famous (Boston-based) art thief. The actual book was eventually published as ART OF THE HEIST.
MONEY TO BURN is the as-told-to memoir of Jerry Nissenbaum, a famous (Boston-based) divorce attorney, focusing on his most sensational cases. The names and identities of everybody (except Jerry) mentioned herein were changed, as you'd expect. Book was eventually published as SEX, LOVE & MONEY.
Hope these help. You can share w/ your collaborator, if appropriate, but otherwise please keep them close.
Thanks and all best,
Dan
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Gregg Housh [mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 12:50 PM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>>
Subject: Re: Agency Agreement
That would probably be a huge help. The only sample one I have is a dog training book that didnt seem to actually be successful. It isnt as helpful as I would have hoped, so some other material to look at would be great.
On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>>>> wrote:
Gregg-
Just had a nice chat w/ Greg, so we're underway already.
Can't wait to see the material, whenever you're ready. Meanwhile: would it help to see a couple of sample proposals that I've developed en route to selling projects previously? Let me know.
Best
Dan
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
________________________________
From: Gregg Housh [mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com><mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com<mailto:greggatghc@gmail.com>>>>]
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 11:45 AM
To: Daniel Conaway
Cc: gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>>>
Subject: Re: Agency Agreement
Hi Daniel. I am working on the new proposal with my new partner in this. Its going well. He has a good idea of whats going on and what it needs to contain.
I wanted to introduce you to my lawyer so we could actually finish the paperwork on this. I am CC'ing him on this email, here is his information:
gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com><mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com<mailto:gthomson@thethomsonlawfirm.com>>>>
Gregory A. Thomson, Esq.
26 Broadway, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel. 212-809-8900<tel:212-809-8900><tel:212-809-8900<tel:212-809-8900>><tel:212-809-8900<tel:212-809-8900><tel:212-809-8900<tel:212-809-8900>>>
Fax 212-344-0991<tel:212-344-0991><tel:212-344-0991<tel:212-344-0991>><tel:212-344-0991<tel:212-344-0991><tel:212-344-0991<tel:212-344-0991>>>
ps: Greg, you'll find Daniels information at the bottom of this email.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Daniel Conaway <dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com><mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com<mailto:dconaway@writershouse.com>>>>> wrote:
Gregg,
Here's the Agency Agreement draft I promised. One slightly complicated thing for you to think about is how to characterize Anonymous in the context of this document. As the author, you'd be the copyright holder, and thus (for these purposes) the "owner." I put it in here in such a way as to characterize you, sorta, as an agent of Anonymous, but if you want to handle it in some other fashion, that's fine.
Have a look and let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks, and all best,
Dan
Dan Conaway
Literary Agent
Writers House
(212) 696-3825<tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825><tel:%28212%29%20696-3825>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>>>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302><tel:512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302<tel:512-560-2302>
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
512-560-2302