Earlier today I shared a post written by Michael Bird titled The Mystery of Tom Wright’s New Book that He Didn’t Write (Bird has removed this post, providing an updated post: Wrightgate: the Resolution) . Apparently, Amazon.com was selling a book that was said to have been written by Wright and a man named Tim Suttle, but when Bird contacted Wright about the book it was discovered that Wright had not written it, nor did he know Suttle. Several of us commented on Suttle’s blog letting him know he needed to explain himself, because there was some confusion, and I sent him a message via Twitter, but he didn’t respond to me.
Personally, I was surprised that any publisher would try to sell a book with a man’s name on the cover who had nothing to do with the composition of the book. Similarly, I was a surprised that Amazon.com had made it available (I sent a message to Amazon.com informing them that their information was incorrect, since the book was listed on Wright’s author page). Though I knew it was quite possible that someone could try to play a trick like this one, and though I don’t know Suttle, I wanted to belief this was a mistake and not a scam (which I explained in Using an author’s name without their permission).
It was a mistake.
Suttle wrote a blog post today explaining the situation and though the publisher goofed it does not appear that Suttle was doing anything malicious. In N.T. Wright and Breaking Beautiful he explains that the Work of the People videos were purchased by the publisher who in turn asked if he would write something to accompany it. Suttle wasn’t aiming to deceive. I believe him. I think this was an oversight on his part. Suttle wanted to help make Wright’s writings more available for a general audience because Wright has been influential for him. I applaud this motivation and I do hope that Suttle has the opportunity to do that very thing.
Now, let’s be clear, this doesn’t excuse the publisher for using Wright’s name. That is a bad, bad idea. It comes across as very deceptive and while it may be easy to belief that Suttle wasn’t doing anything wrong on purpose it is hard for me to belief that the publisher didn’t know this was misleading.
the archives near Emmaus 
Brian,
I don’t really get the complaint here. TWOP and The House Studio have books like this with Walter Brueggemann and Stanley Hauerwas. In the book will be the video transcript, which is clearly NT Wright’s words and a section, clearly written by someone else, explaining and expounding on them. Most of the time a DVD of Wright’s words will accompany it. I really don’t see anything worth getting upset at over from distance. If NT Wright feels those videos and his words in them shouldn’t be made available like this that is a reasonable positon but what the publisher is doing is making a great small group resource available from NT Wright with commentary by Suttle for the rest of the church. I think you might be jumping to a conclusion that isn’t warranted. The Psalmist Cry and Sunday Asylum are great examples of how these things are done normally without a problem at all.
Apparently, Wright did have some concerns, as Bird updates the situation here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2013/05/wrightgate-the-resolution/
….and, Wright has not been consulted about the content during the process, which is a no-no, as Bird explains.
According to a post by Elizabeth Murphy (of The House Studio) on Bird’s blog, The House had been in contact with Wright (or Wright’s people). She says,
“Hi Michael,
Elizabeth Perry here from The House Studio. We understand that you are a theologian and not a journalist, and we want you to know we get that. However, a small amount of research (going to the source) would go a long way in getting you some answers.
There was no attempt to steal N. T. Wright’s name and likeness. The House Studio has a reputation of impeccable integrity; that’s not the way we operate. We have been in correspondence with Dr. Wright, apart from a legal contract, regarding the terms of this project. The details of that correspondence and contract are proprietary.
I can tell you this much: The centerpiece of this project are video segments by Dr. Wright. We enlisted trusted, local parish pastor, Tim Suttle, to write a curriculum around Wright’s words. The reader would at no time confuse the chapter material for Wright’s. Video transcripts are Wright, but the commentary is uniquely and clearly Suttle in the first person.
As an aside, I agree with Tim Keel; your apology to Tim Suttle was insufficient.”
Your last sentence, Brian, about about how The House Studio doesn’t get to use Wright’s name makes it sound like they did it maliciously. It doesn’t appear to be that way. If The House was breaking bad (I know, I couldn’t help myself) then I don’t think Shane Claiborne, Walter Brueggemann, or Stanley Hauerwas would have worked with them. Something is not adding up and I think it’s best everyone to stop pointing fingers when they don’t have all the facts. I don’t have all the facts but I think we can treat each other better than this, yeah?
Scott,
Let me put it this way (since I am not an expert on the legal matters, nor do I know what it would be like to have “people” who represent my intellectual property to the point where I would have no idea that my name is being used): as the consumer if I purchase a book written by N.T. Wright then come to find out that the book is merely transcripts from videos he did mixed with commentary by another person it would be upsetting. The House Studio may have the legal right to do this. That is their defense, but as someone who signed on to Amazon.com, who would see this book packaged with books that have been written by Wright, I would be very displeased when this book arrived in the mail.
The fact that other books with Brueggemann, Claiborne, and Hauerwas have been published doesn’t mean that I am suddenly at ease. Rather, it means that I find it more concerning. This means it is not a limited incident, but an entire marketing strategy. Again, it may be fair game, and maybe publishers do have the legal right to present their books this way, but as the consumer it irritates me.
This business was really was much ado about nothing. It appears Michael Bird was caught meddling …
You might think so, but if I were to have purchased that book only to discover that it wasn’t written by N.T. Wright it would have upset me.