Dear Prudence: My in-law wants to be a published author

[minoanmiss]

(That title really doesn't cover it but it was the best I could do.)

Dear Prudence,

My in-law has severe mental health issues and a history of violent behaviors, stalking, and delusions. He is medicated, but he is still clearly “off.” My husband’s family has expressed concerns about relapses. He has delusions of grandeur about becoming a big novelist like George R.R. Martin. He gets aggressive when he talks about it. He has been arrested for trespassing at the houses of publishers and literary agents and sending harassing, threatening messages. At a family function, I quietly mentioned that I recently got my book published. I had no idea he was around. Later on, he said that he overheard me and would like the name of my editor, publisher, and agent. I panicked and told him he must have misheard—I haven’t written a book. My husband’s family agreed not to say anything or let anything slip. They agreed that what I did was the best response, because he wouldn’t accept “I’d prefer not to divulge that information” as an answer.


Eventually, he confronted me with the release page for my book, including publisher and agent information. Prudence, what else could I say but that it’s not me? I feel bad playing with his already tenuous sense of reality, but what else can I do? I feel like I’m too far to turn back now. I’m worried that I’m being ableist, but his transgressions are on record, in the family *and* the news, and they are severe. How do I handle this going forward? Do I keep lying? Do I avoid all family gatherings he might be at? Was I wrong for lying in the first place?

—Gaslighter?

This is a doozy! I think we can do some things to help. In terms of “gaslighting,” you told a single, brief, instinctual lie out of fear he would harass your team, which is very forgivable. It got dicey when you decided to double down on the lie and got the whole family involved with it. I don’t want someone with mental health issues to have more reason to be paranoid or to think people are conspiring behind his back.

There is no need to keep lying. I note that you said “he wouldn’t accept” a statement from you that you would rather not talk about this. That’s untrue. You do not have to alter your reasonable boundary because someone keeps hacking away at it.

I encourage you to use the pandemic as an excuse to avoid family gatherings as much as possible. Next time you see him, if he brings up the book, you can say, “Yes, that’s my book. I’m sorry, my team has wanted me to keep it under the radar for now” (this is not a lie; your “team” is you, your husband’s family, and, if you have one, a dog). He does not have to accept this, but neither do you need to accept his nonacceptance of it. Leave the room! Go to the bathroom! Listen to “50 Ways to Leave Your Lover” for more ideas.

I think the more space you can put between you and this man, the better. You do not have to have these conversations. I would give your agent and your publisher a heads-up in case he tries to enter one of their buildings. I would also talk to your husband’s family about your concerns so they’re aware he may have a relapse and that you can’t keep hiding the book forever.

Congratulations on the book!

Comments

[oursin]

I suspect this is person who expects, once he has informed publishers, agents, etc, of his intentions, that they will beat a path to his door with contracts and mega-advances. And then he just has to sit down and let it all pour out.

Plus is probably not the sort of person to send out manuscripts or even possibly the proposals of His Great Ideas, lest someone rip them off.

[azurelunatic]

When "he wouldn't accept" is code for "he will start stalking ME", I think a good approach is to never see him again and start hosting family functions that explicitly do not invite him.

[ashbet]

Agreed — someone whose stalking/transgressions have *made the news* is not a safe person to try to enforce a verbal boundary with, when it concerns the object of their obsession (which they have already stalked/harassed others over.)

[delight]

Glad that warning the publisher and agent was mentioned, because I was going to say, oh dear, in-law has these people's names now.

[conuly]

I feel for in-law here, I do, because serious mental health issues are no joke... but if he's got a history of violent behavior and stalking, and is at risk of relapse, and everybody has to watch their words around him, I'm thinking maybe they should only meet up with him in small-group settings where he's less likely to overhear a side conversation because there aren't any side conversations?

Or, perhaps, not meet up with him at all and keep in touch through non-physical methods like the phone or birthday cards?

[ex_flameandsong751]

I have sympathy for the in-law here, however I really feel like if the family is that afraid, with stalking behavior that has been *in the news*, they ought to consider family functions that don't involve him, and limiting their contact with him as much as possible. Not the least of which being then they don't have to lie about things and gaslight him, which will contribute to his paranoia. (Mind, I'm not saying she was in the wrong for not wanting to give him the contact info of her publisher, etc, I likely would have done the same exact thing in that situation.)

[cereta]

You know, I have the easy excuse of "fuck no am I exposing my daughter to this," but I would be drawing a hard line in the sand around myself and my immediate family. I sympathize with mental illness, but sympathizing doesn't mean exposing myself to danger. I spent half an hour being followed and cursed at by a large man exhibiting paranoid delusions, and I had nightmares for a week.

[mirlacca]

I note that you said “he wouldn’t accept” a statement from you that you would rather not talk about this. That’s untrue. You do not have to alter your reasonable boundary because someone keeps hacking away at it.

I hope Prudence meant "It's not true that you have to lie because he wouldn't accept a statement of truth from you" instead of what she wrote, which is that he wouldn't accept the statement. He absolutely would refuse to accept it, and the situation would be escalated. Something very similar happened to me when my brother decided I owed him the names of my agent and editor.

But apparently Prudence is willing to split hairs; OP is supposed to make her "team" into more than it is, and that's not a lie? It's an invitation for the in-law to demand the names of the team so he can convince them they're wrong too. At least the last paragraph is right, but she needs to put all the distance possible between herself/her family and this guy.

[bikergeek]

It is not ableist to be worried that you or others will become victims of stalking, abusive, harassing, or possibly violent behavior from someone who has a demonstrated history of such behavior.

[evilsusan]

It sounds like creep-in-law wants to write fiction. Fiction has to be complete and polished before presented to an agent or publisher. Only books written by authorities on a topic are going to get entertained at all without a manuscript.

Plus not all publishers/agents work with the same sorts of manuscripts. LW's people might not work with what CIL does at all. Assuming he actually does anything. A How-To publisher is not going to look at his fantasy world, for example.

It's not just a lack of names, it's not just a lack of access, it's not just a lack of understanding of how to human, it's a fundamental lack of understanding of the industry he hopes to enter.

LW needs to refer CIL back to doing the actual writing.

Yes, I know, that's not the real point of the letter, but just asking him if his manuscript is completely done is both constructive and reasonable.