Right, there was a Column by that name before him, but were those collected into the books, etc? How about the “main” Cecil?
By this criterion, there are countless sports figures who have exact doubles running around.
I am deeply shocked and saddened by this thread. Next thing you know, some wiseacre will be debunking The Parable Of The Three-In-One Oil.
DrDeth, I’m not sure if the original columns were collected into books or not. But I would definitely agree with you that Ed has been writing the column for so long now that he is considered the “main” Cecil.
I’m still curious why the trademark is in ‘abandoned’ state. Does this mean anybody can use it with legal impunity?
If you look at the link I brought earlier, it says:
I looked that case up; it was an appeal by the Reader from the final refusal of the Trademark Examining Attorney to register “Cecil Adams” as a trademark. The case affirms the refusal on the grounds that a nom de plume or psuedonym for a writer isn’t generally regarded as a trademark for the writing. I’d be very interested in taking a look at the Reader’s pleadings in that case…
So how many people thought this was going to be about Paula Poundstone, and were wondering if there were allegations of inapropriate behavior being directed towards Ed and/or Cecil?
Just me?
Okay.
“Do not try to bend the spoon, that’s impossible. Only try to realize the truth: There is no spoon.”
So, there wasn’t someone named “Mark Twain.” There was a Samuel Clemens who wrote some pretty neat stuff.
Does this mean that I can start publishing my crummy articles under the name “Mark Twain?” Legally? What would happen if I tried?
Perhaps Cecil is a real person named, oh say, Slats Grobnik who chose to keep his real person to himself. It’s not like he appears at cocktail parties. He’s no social butterfly. Hell, he’s a freakin’ recluse. Do you think he told the reader his real name?
I think there’s more here than just a scam.
Samclem, the point is that he is not a “real person,” as Mark Twain was. If, for example, several different writers over a period of time wrote stories under the name Mark Twain, that would make “him” a fictional character rather than the man, Samuel Clemens.
However, I don’t think that Paula Poundstone has anything to do with this. She just ain’t that funny. 
I think that was the point that the Reader was trying to make in its application. The work of a psuedonymous writer can be protected by copyright (as are Cecil’s columns, and Thomas Pynchon’s books) but not the psuedonym itself. I think the Reader was trying to make the argument that there was no real “Cecil Adams,” and that it was used more in the manner of a trademark than a psuedonym and should be entitled to just as much protection as “The Straight Dope” or “Chef Boyardee.” The opinion says that “Cecil Adams appears to be the name of a person, abeit fictitious, and is not used in the manner of a trademark.” This makes me this that the application was turned down because even if there is no one Cecil Adams the name is used as a psuedonym and is thus not trademark-able.
The thing that makes me wonder, though, is that the opinion says that the opinion says the Reader submitted to the record “copies of the registration files of the marks ANN LANDERS and JIMMY THE GREEK” in support of their argument. It later says that “**ecause the specimens in the registration files made of record by (the Reader) were markedly different from those in this case, they form no support for the registrability for the name CECIL ADAMS.” I am now very interested in seeing those registrations and the pleadings in that case.
Actually, Paula Poundstone DOES have something to do with this. She’s William Poundstone’s cousin.
I knew it! I KNEW IT! It all makes sense now!
It’s…it’s…
Never mind.
The thought occurs to me that perhaps the official secret about the Zotti authorship is for the benefit of the Reader, in order to preserve their ownership of the Cecil franchise.
As has been noted previously, there have been times when Zotti did not write the columns, and they could presumably revert to such a situation again. So suppose there is some negotiation between Zotti and the Reader over financial arrangements and terms or the like. As in any employee/employer dispute, the leverage that the employer has is to fire the employee and replace him with someone else. The leverage that the employee has is to perform the same work elsewhere. To the extent that Cecil Adams is synonymous in the public eye with Ed Zotti, it harms any replacement “Cecil” that might try to substitute, and enhances the ability of Zotti to restore the Cecil column under a different moniker. Conversely, to the extent that Cecil is successfully presented as being some mythical being, it enhances the ability of the Reader to substitute a different Cecil and keep the column going without Zotti, and reduces Zotti’s ability to cash in on the Cecil name elsewhere.
Of course, this is all pure speculation. But speculation is what this type of thread is all about, so I think it fits right in.
In a chat session on AOL I asked Cecil flat out if he and Ed are the same person. He responded: “Ed Zotti and I are most definitely not the same person.”
Ed Zotti responded: “you think I can type on two keyboards at once?”
I know it doesn’t prove much.
It is possible to have two chat logins running on the same computer for a great many chat clients. Since I don’t use AOL I don’t know if it is possible with the version of their client you were using at the time.
Sorry to be of so little help.
Enjoy,
Steven
The thing is… it doesn’t matter.
I look at it this way… Santa Claus might not exist, but I still believe in him, and his mission. Same for Cecil. Whether or not he exists as a separate real person is moot. Even if Cecil is just a “drunk guy in a red suit at the mall” it doesn’t matter. Ignorance is being fought. THAT is what matters.
That being said, Cecil Adams is my hero. 
<< It is possible to have two chat logins running on the same computer for a great many chat clients. Since I don’t use AOL I don’t know if it is possible with the version of their client you were using at the time. >>
This wasn’t a chat login, this was an AOL “celebrity appearance” where Cecil fielded questions from the audience. Ed was MC and kept conversation going while Cecil reviewed the questions and figured which ones he’d answer. No way that Ed types anywhere near fast enough to have managed that. Nor Cecil, for that matter.
Cecil gets a huge kick out of these discussions, and Ed forbids Mods or Admins to get involved or comment.
So, soon after I joined SDMB, I asked a question that was based on a GAMES magazine article. My response told me of Poundstone’s work. I was overjoyed when I found the book (The 2 in 1 Big book). So anyway, Imagine what I planned on doing today after I read the article in the book. It seems as if 60 odd people beat me to it.
So…where does Andy Kaufman fit into all this?
Somewhere, surely.