Category Archives: controversy

May 01, 2012   Brenna   Brenna, buzz, censorship, classics, controversy, culture, inspiration  
0

Revolution

It’s hard to think about anything else today besides the noise and excitement going on nine stories below. If you’re not in NY (particularly Union Square) or another major city today, Occupy Wall Street is having its May Day protest. Without delving into the politics of all that, let’s talk books.

Books have historically been vehicles for major revolutions, just think about Uncle Tom’s Cabin, Common Sense, and The Communist Manifesto.

So, what do you think the “Bibles” of OWS should be? What books have served to inspire you to make a drastic change?

April 18, 2012   Stacey   controversy, dead people, fiction, opinion, prizes, Stacey  
10

The Pulitzer, or lack thereof

There has been so much chatter the last couple of days about the Pulitzer judges not awarding a fiction (or editorial writing ) prize for the first time since 1977 that I thought it was worth a mention on our blog.

Whether you loved the nominated books or hated them, or never even heard of them, the reality is that historically the prize does help sales. In a market that’s changing so rapidly and with the shrinking number of retailers, most of us feel like we want every boost we can get for our books. A Pulitzer Prize certainly offers that.

Ann Patchett (one of my favorites, as you might know) sums it up beautifully in her New York Times op-ed piece. As she suggests, the Pulitzer is the literary version of the Oscar, and to not have a prize this year when we’re all craving good news is definitely disappointing. It is sad to think, as Patchett points out, that David Foster Wallace will not have another chance to win. So, we’ll sigh and move on.

What do you all think of this? Do you care about the Pulitzer for fiction or that one wasn’t awarded this year? Is it something that makes you go out and buy a book (I’ll admit I did buy Jennifer Egan’s A Visit from the Goon Squad last year after it won the prize)? Curious minds want to know.

March 28, 2012   Miriam   controversy, dead people, digital publishing, fun, great books, Miriam, self-publishing  
8

Necessary losses

Most of us who work in publishing are passionate about books.  Duh.

We are also passionate about the written word in its myriad forms and about the primacy of the creative process.  Even when working with prima donna “authors,” celebrities who are barely literate, and writers of all stripes whose work should probably be hurled across the room in homage to the great Dorothy Parker, many of us are easily star struck.  All it takes is a brilliant turn of phrase, a well crafted, ambitious novel, a surprising and daring narrative gambit and we’re in love.

But, most of us in the business know with utter certainty that there are books that should be shelved, put in a drawer, sent through the shredder or, in the case of the truly great writers, consigned to footnotes in fawning biographies.  In this era of e-books and the voracious need for content, whatever its worth, it’s hard to defend the position that some books just should not be published.  And yet, some books should not be published.

Reading this short piece in the HuffPost about “lost” early efforts by renowned authors, later found and brought out under the guise of offering additional glimpses into those authors’ psyches, reinforces my opinion that not everything deserves to be in print.  My contention that someone should have told Shakespeare to put aside Titus Andronicus and turn his talents to somewhat less bloody family dramas has gotten me in trouble in literature classes as well as cocktail parties but really, would that have been such a loss?

I think all of us need to recognize, especially now when it’s so easy to self-publish, when something is not ready for public consumption and be able to move on to the next project with an eye to applying the lessons learned and producing something stronger, better…publishable.  What do you think?  As writers, can you make the call on your own work?  Can you make the call on other peoples’?  Should everything be published, the good, the bad, and the badly written?

 

March 28, 2012   John   controversy, John, opinion, parenting  
3

An agent’s responsibility

When I was first contemplating making the switch from editing to agenting, one of my concerns was the morality of the profession. Now, I’d worked with agents for years, and not once did I ever encounter the classic agent stereotype—you know, the fast-talking, cigar-chomping, ready-to-sell-his-mother-down-the-river-for-a-quick-buck shyster. And indeed, I’ve found that, at least here at DGLM, we make it a point of conducting our business as honestly and responsibly as possible.

Still, it’s with a bit of unease that I want to talk about yesterday’s kerfuffle over Dara Lynn-Reiss and her book deal for her Vogue article. If you haven’t read it, it’s basically about how she shamed her 7-year-old daughter into losing weight. As a parent, I found it to be a terrible story, and one that I frankly don’t want to read more about in book form. But as an agent I did find myself wondering about the sale, and whether I would have taken this project on myself.

Certainly, the article is controversial, and controversy sells. And I don’t necessarily have a problem with that—when I help a writer put together a proposal, say, for a narrative or a memoir, a key question is what “newsworthy” content (i.e. controversy) might be included. Moreover, if an agent’s primary role is to sell books, how much do I have to like or approve of the material?

But ultimately, I’d like to think I’d pass for the reason Mary Elizabeth Williams lays out so convincingly in Salon—it’s just a depressing way to sell books. It’s cynical and potentially exploitative—and even if it isn’t, I just don’t see how I would be proud of myself for repping this book. I’d like to think Lynn-Reiss’s agent had a different take on the material, and he’s certainly entitled to his opinion. But if his calculations lined up with Williams’ reading of the sale—well, color me depressed…

Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts on this—both on Lynn-Reiss’ situation and where an agent should draw the line on what material to rep.

 

February 29, 2012   Miriam   Amazon, Apple, censorship, controversy, e-books, future of publishing, Miriam, news, retailers  
8

Censor censure

I’ve been on a bit of a Words With Friends kick lately (okay, more a debilitating obsession than a kick but no one’s kicked me off a plane yet) and one of the frustrating things I’ve found about the game is how it censors what it considers unacceptable words. Not sure what geniuses (or algorithms) decide what works and what doesn’t but when you’re behind by 15 points and you’ve got the letters to wipe your opponent out with a word you know is a word but that WWF won’t allow…well, it makes you a little short tempered.

Thing is, censorship is all around us and, by and large, we tend to overlook minor instances of it as long as the big freedoms aren’t compromised.   I can shake my head and keep playing WWF, say, because who cares about a silly app game.  But, is that the right attitude?  When you hear about Seth Godin’s experience with Apple refusing to carry one of his “manifestos” because there are links in it to the Amazon store, the whole Big Brother thing becomes a bit sinister.  This is censorship seasoned with monopolistic bullying, in my opinion.

How much freedom of speech can be guaranteed when behemoths like Apple and Amazon censor what is available to consumers for any reason other than that the work(s) in question poses a real physical threat to individuals?  Sure, a privately owned retailer may choose what goods and services it wants to offer, but when you have two or three entities responsible for the dissemination of vast amounts of information, it seems to me that it should not be morally, ethically, or legally okay for those entities to decide what consumers may or may not be able to buy.

Those of us in the publishing business have a rather bedeviled relationship with Apple, Amazon and B&N (especially the first two).  On the one hand, we need them in order to place our authors’ wares.  On the other, we are increasingly concerned with the practices of these soulless corporations whose only interest is the financial bottom line and for whom books and the entire publishing world are but a blip in their massive spreadsheets.  Is it time for the government to step in and regulate how content is served up?  What can we do as consumers (and book lovers) to safeguard our ability to buy any book (or story or manifesto) we want?  Should we be outraged or should we shrug our shoulders and lump this with the Word With Friends shenanigans?

What’s your take on all of this?  Am I over- or under-reacting?

December 08, 2011   Michael   Amazon, controversy, Michael, retailers  
0

Humor helps

This has been a week of major Amazon consternation here in publishing land. First, they bought the 450-title trade list of Marshall Cavendish, a small, independent publisher of high-quality books for children. The reaction from booksellers was quick, including one tweeting that she was looking forward to shipping back all the Marshall Cavendish titles. Agents were (and still are) very curious to hear from the publisher about just what this means for our authors. Then they announced a fun promotion in which they’re asking customers to go to brick-and-mortar retailers, find items they want, scan their barcode with Amazon’s app, then get $5 from Amazon for doing price research for them! While this program does not include books (because as Josie Leavitt points out, they already know how much their competitors charge for books–no research needed!), booksellers and some authors have been up in arms about Amazon’s audacity. It’s certainly a ballsy move to proactively promote such behavior, though the app (and others like it) have been around for some time.

But one bookseller, Roxanne J Coady, has a modest proposal for Amazon that could help even the playing field. I won’t spoil the fun by giving anything more away, but please do take a look. A little levity never hurts.

November 30, 2011   Miriam   controversy, fiction, memoir, Miriam, nonfiction  
9

Fact or fiction?

On long road trips with my six-year-old, as parents have from time immemorial (or, okay, since cars and freeways were invented), we often while away the minutes between bathroom stops with games like “Fiction or Non-fiction?” and its first cousin “True or False?” What’s interesting to me about this exercise is how hard it sometimes is to explain to a child how certain things can be true/non-fiction, even if we haven’t experienced them ourselves. Case in point? Dinosaurs. Literal minded kids (or kids under a certain age) think that because they don’t exist now they must be fiction or part of a great left-wing conspiracy.

Anyway, my point, rambling though it might be, is that gray areas exist when trying to categorize fiction and non-fiction. Certainly, this is something that is daily evident in my line of work. You have only to read an artfully crafted memoir to wonder how much is true/non-fiction and how much is the author’s imagination/ambition/skill/lousy memory at work and, therefore, false/fiction. As far as I’m concerned, as long as things are clearly labeled—i.e., “I remember it this way but I confess the years may have dimmed my powers of recollection”—I’m okay with narratives that are more well wrought than truthful.

For me, in fact, the thornier issue is fiction, where anything goes. Right? Or does it? This piece in Jezebel about Alexander Maksik’s much lauded novel skeeves me out precisely because it raises uncomfortable issues about what and how much is allowed when an author puts on his/her novelist hat. Using fiction to tackle difficult subjects is de rigueur in literature, accomplishing creative expression while avoiding legal liability. But what about the collateral damage? Is it okay for Mr. Maksik to exploit his alleged experience with a student for literary fame and success? Must we defend his right to do so as elemental to the whole concept of creative freedom? Or do we just call a sleaze a sleaze?

Help me out on this one folks. I don’t want to condemn Mr. Maksik out of hand but given all the recent headline grabbing scandals about authority figures abusing their power over kids, I wonder if instead of praise for his artistry, we should be censuring his alleged behavior. What do you all think?

November 04, 2011   Lauren   controversy, fun, Lauren, opinion  
9

Crossing a line, so not an ocean

Apparently when S&S tried to sell one of their latest into the big box stores, Walmart and Target declined to pick up copies.  Former Daily Show exec producer David Javerbaum’s The Last Testament: A Memoir (by God) has offended the sensibilities of their buyers—or they perceive it will offend the sensibilities of their customers enough that it’s not worth carrying.  I will admit right now that I am not the consumer they have in mind when they raise that fear, but to each his own in that regard.  Much as I find the idea of Javerbaum’s book (and his @TheTweetofGod Twitter account) pretty funny, I can see why someone for whom blasphemy means something other than entertainment might oppose it.  And I don’t see a private entity not selling something as akin to censorship, so I don’t morally oppose their choice.

The thing that shocks me here is that S&S UK backed out.  We always hear about how we’re so much more religious and PC in this country than the UK—and as a fan of British panel quiz shows, I can guarantee you that political correctness has not taken root in UK society to the extent it has here—so it’s a surprising development.  The UK market tends to be more cautious about controversial books, since their libel laws are much less defendant friendly than those here in the US, but I’m having a hard time imagining that S&S fears God will bring suit.  I’m really not sure why it is they changed their minds, but I’m pretty surprised to see that S&S US went full steam ahead and S&S UK said no.  Perhaps it’s the Daily Show factor?  Maybe in the US, the damage will be offset by the show’s loyal following, but in the UK, there’s less of a fan base to appeal to.

So, dear readers, what say you?  Offensive?  Offensive enough to boycott over?  Offensive enough not to publish at all for fear of poor sales or backlash?  Thoughts on why the UK pulled the plug?  It’s an interesting turn of events, for sure.  And some fantastic publicity for the book either way.

October 19, 2011   Miriam   Amazon, authors, bestsellers, competition, controversy, digital publishing, e-books, Miriam, self-publishing, selling  
9

Moneyball, Amazon and the end of publishing as we know it

In this week’s death watch, the publishing business is going the way of the Edsel.  E-books have won.  Traditional publishers don’t know what to do with themselves or their lists.  Agents are unnecessary.  Anarchy reigns among authors.   And, oh, yeah, Amazon is getting closer to world domination (tricky bastards).  There is no leadership.  The darkness is encroaching.  The center cannot hold!

Let’s see, that about covers it, I think.  Except, does it?

The afore-linked-to New York Times article contains a quote from Russ Grandinetti (whom we’ve met a few times at Amazon seminars we’ve attended and whom the Times refers to as “one of Amazon’s top executives,” leading me to believe they don’t know exactly what he does) which I actually loved: “It’s always the end of the world. You could set your watch on it arriving.”  It also mentions some other shady (unnamed) Amazon characters twirling their mustaches while claiming that “publishers [are] in love with their own demise.”  As wary as  my colleagues and I are about Amazon and their plans to expand into publishing, I tend to agree with their assessment that traditional publishers can come across as a self-indulgent, hand wringing bunch who’d rather blame the big bad corporate entity for poaching their authors and re-drawing the battle lines than take effective steps to compete and prosper.

Enough, already.  If the model is broken or the times have changed and there’s a new model out there, then learn it, adapt your systems, and make it work for you.  Publishers are sitting on gold mines of backlists.  They seem to be unable or unwilling to competitively price and promote the e-books  they are putting out.  They’re still paying too much for that “sure thing” Jane was talking about earlier this week.  Most of all, they are loath to innovate at the speed the new paradigm requires.

Gerry Howard writes movingly in this week’s PW about how you really can’t apply the principles of Moneyball to publishing because you’d be ripping out its heart and doing away with all that wonderful serendipity that made The Bridges of Madison County, Tuesdays with Morrie, The DaVinci Code and countless other “small” buys into huge bestsellers.  I agree.  But, the thing I take away from Moneyball (the book and the film) is that you’ve got to look at your game differently if you are up against a rich behemoth who outpitches, outhits, and outfields you because they can buy all the talent out there.  Whether you’re talking about the Yankees or Amazon, I think the lesson is the same:  you can win playing smart small ball too.

Thoughts?  Comments?  Angry rebuttals?

October 17, 2011   Jim   awards, controversy, Jim  
5

National Book Flub

Maybe I shouldn’t blog about the National Book Awards kerfuffle since once upon a time I interned for the foundation for one semester. But oh man, I love a good scandal, and I can’t help myself.

For those who don’t know, when the finalists were announced for the Young People’s Literature Award last week, they had to go back and add a sixth nominee because something had been included in error. No one actually said what book wasn’t supposed to be on the list, but it was pretty quickly deduced that Lauren Myracle’s SHINE wasn’t intended as a finalist. So there are six books up for the award instead of five and one author being forced to look like an idiot. “Congratulation on your nomina….PSYCH!”

According to Myracle, at the end of last week, it was decided that she should withdraw from the running in order to protect the integrity of the award. The integrity of an award that couldn’t even get its nominees listed correctly in the official announcement.

Hindsight is 20/20, but let’s imagine how this would have gone under slightly different circumstances: five finalists are named. A sixth finalist is added and we’re told that there was an error: usually only five books are up for the award but the judges selected six this year. Because of the unusual circumstances, one accidentally got left off the official announcement. The sixth book is added, and everyone goes about their days. No authors are publicly acknowledged as NOT finalists thus reducing the potential for humiliating someone through no fault of their own.

Much to her credit, Myracle has handled the situation with aplomb. And the $5K that she would have received as a finalist has been donated to the Matthew Shephard Foundation. AND…free publicity! After reading so much about her book SHINE, which deals with a girl whose best friend falls victim to a vicious hate crime, I actually ordered a copy. Maybe others have as well? It sounds like a stunning novel, so I’m now really looking forward to diving in. I mean…as much as you “look forward” to reading really sad-sounding things.

Still, while Myracle could get some new sales out of this, I’m pretty sure she would have traded some sales for not having to be put through the ringer for the past week. Poorly played, former employer. Poorly played.

« Older posts
Newer posts »