How to use this Page

wow. Speak? really?? someone has issues. one of the most important things a book can do for you is to open you up to new ideas/experiences/ways of thinking. learning! aargh. okay, sorry, preaching to the choir, i know . . . :)

It seems to me that most people assume if a book is worth burning, then it's worth reading. People who try to make a stand this way just end up having it blow up in their faces.

The only way I can see burning a book being acceptable is if you have to do it for survival purposes. Say, if the Ice Age comes and you have a choice between burning books and freezing to death.

Aside from that, though? Not so much.

Quoting from a friend's facebook comment (because that idiot is about 5 miles from where I live and I'd just joked about the third thing we have --after the gators and "don't taze me bro" --that made national news). Anyway she said, "Pointing out to non-Gainesvillians, the whole "Burn a Koran Day" thing is 30 people from the same Westboro supporting, koolaidy church. All their publicity stunts (including sending little kids to school in "Islam is of the Devil" shirts) tend to be geared towards selling their leader's book about Islam (although it's clear he's never studied any religious text, Bible included)."

And she's right. And it made national news immediately after the city denied them a burn permit. So I'm waiting to see if they do it anyway and get arrested or if they find a spot outside of town burn ordinances or if they give up because all they wanted was the publicity of the moment.

But now that that's out of the way: My first thought on book burning is: NOOOOOOOOO!

Second thought is: Well, if they legally buy all the books they plan on burning, well, they have every right to do it.

If I had a physical book, I'd be happy to sell 100 copies -- at discount even -- to a cult just so they COULD burn them on national news.

Think of the PUBLICITY. What a sales bump that would be.

That's another drawback to ebooks. Burning a hundred digital copies on a Kindle doesn't have the same flair (flare?). The Kindle just sort of melts quietly into a puddle.

It won't be long before a good old-fashioned book burning is passe.

Seriously, you can burn things in effigy (people, national spirit, ideas), but the things themselves will go on. No radical group can squelch majority opinion -- at least not for long.

Seriously, you'd think people would have learned by now that if you want a book to go unread you don't even tell anyone about it let alone burn it!

I'd burn a book if I was freezing to death... even then I might let my fingers go a little frost-bitten before I lit the match.

I find it odd that someone could hate a book so much that they would burn it. They're so terrified by the ideas in those pages that they have to get rid of them. But ideas outlive their corporal forms and burning books is nothing more than showmanship in the end.

I loved the XKCD comic about book burning a few weeks back.

Is it ever "ok" (i.e. acceptable) to burn a book? If I'm freezing to death, sure.

There was one book I bought a copy of, read, and then destroyed, because it was actually physically dangerous. (It urged readers to do things that could kill them and never warned the readers that this stuff was dangerous, and it sounded innocent to anyone that didn't know what was involved.)

I didn't want to give that book away and be responsible for someone else's death. I didn't want to throw it in the trash (where it belonged) because I didn't someone else to find it. I didn't want it on my shelves, where someone might think I endorsed the ideas. So, I shredded it.

Did I hold a party and invite people to the shredding? No. Will I name the title or author in this post? No. I wish I could have thought of something else to do, but I didn't know what else I could ethically do. It was like trying to get rid of a gun.

Through reading the blog and comments that follow, I recall a quote from my all-time favorite movie, V for Vendetta. "We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world."

Case in point, you can burn the book or as many copies as you have. The idea still remains. Burning the book does not kill the idea, or story or the lessons contained within. It matters not the media, nor the method of destruction, the very act is a useless waste of resources and fails to its very core.

We, as authors, take our passion seriously and it is hard for me to even think of burning a book. I find it totally absurd. I do, however, respect the right to protest. Even the ignorant deserve a voice…unfortunately.

In the last four months Jan Brewer has been caught lying, three times and counting.

The comments made on June 16, 2010, and June 27, 2010, clearly indicates that the Brewer says that immigrants are beheading people in the United States desert. She first ran away from the question and the press when confronted with the question. She finally when to FOX/ FAKE News to recant her lie.

When Brewer was confronted with the fact the two of her top Advisors (Paul Senseman, Chuck Coughlin) are lobbyist for “Private Prisons” giant CCA she first ran away from the question and the press.

In an attempt to gain sympathy, she first said her father had died in Germany fighting the Nazi in World War II (which ended 1945) but of course we find out the truth that her father was never in Germany and died in California in 1955. Do you see a trend here?

Brewer signed into law SB 1070 Bill (Did she even read it?), lied about the crime rates in AZ (even Janet Napolitano knows that all crimes rates went down), and now we find out that she is in the pockets of PRIVATE PRISONS who stand to benefit with the increase Federal jailing, and thus they will pay her back, I wonder if it has to do anything about the fact that her son was transferred to a brand new prison, he was convicted for rape and sexual assault, I guess the fruit does not fall far the tree.


“Private Prisons Lie”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMcgXxzcBeY

“AZ Crime Rates”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eb4mMk6XgQ

“Father Lie”
http://vodpod.com/watch/3771595-charles-krauthammer-rips-jan-brewer-for-lying-about-her-father-dying-in-ww2

school notes, yes
books, no... unless I need to keep warm in the coming ice age ;)

I don't think they are burning books to destroy Islam. I don't think anyone can think that.

If I went out and torched every copy of Nigella Lawson's Nigella Bites I wouldn't expect to find out that suddenly people completely forget how to Cook. Young professionals freeze suddenly, confused as to why they have diced chalots and tomatoes on their chopping board, or why there's a knife in their hand, or what that hot box in the kitchen is.

Having said that, these people are so batsh!t crazy there's a chance that is EXACTLY what they believe

You really can't help it if something inspires you can you?
In as much as Mcmanus has his freedom of speech Donoghue has her's too, so we'll just let the readers decide.
ugh freedom of speech!

This is silly. Writers are intrigued by news stories like everybody else. I know of several writers who are already working on things inspired by the plight of those miners in Chile. They're not exploiting it; they're examining it. That's what fiction does.

In fact, aren't MOST fictional works inspired by real events? Most of my work is sparked by the "what if?" that happens in my head when I read a news item or hear somebody with an interesting personal tale.

But if his rant is getting publicity for Emma Donoghue, great!

I suppose Toni Morrison's Beloved is also less than genius. O_o

I LOVE that anyone actually thinks they can put parameters on someone else's muse or inspiration.

"b) some tragedies are more important or sacred than others"

Thanks for this statement. Unfortunately some tragedies throughout history are looked upon as more sacred than others in general.

Are we not supposed to be inspired by the world around us? It sounds as if Donoghue had a what-if moment, and the distaste towards it stems from the fact that the case is relatively recent. What about writers who are inspired by historical events? Arthur Miller used the Salem Witch Trials in The Crucible, too many authors to count drew from history and legend (including Homer and Shakespeare), and so on. Were many of those things not tragedies at the time? And seriously, what makes a tragedy "major" or "minor", since apparently minor tragedies are OK for McManus? One could argue that the Fritzl case is a minor tragedy since it only affects one family, if compared to something like 9/11 or the Rwandan genocide or the Israel-Palestine conflict or, yes, the Holocaust. The Fritzl case has just gotten a lot of news time.

But really, tragedy is tragedy, no matter the scale.

I think it's OK to be inspired by something in the current world, and there's a difference between being inspired to create an original story and writing a fictionalized account. The latter would be tasteless in my opinion, especially since the victims are still alive. I haven't read the book so I can't say, although I'll trust your judgment here.

I never felt like Laura portrayed Native Americans in a deliberately negative light; at times there even seems to be some sympathy for their plight in the face of the political situation created by westward expansion. I also think there is a bit of implicit admiration, or perhaps just curosity as a young girl has her first contact with a people and a culture she has only heard about second hand. No, it's certainly not completely accurate, and you're well aware of all the filters and changes in perspective that are between the real events, the written story, and the reader. But I'm not going to let it diminish my enjoyment of the story, or keep my children from enjoying it as I did. That's not just because it's "historical fiction" or "children's literature", it's because there are really 3 stories worth studying: the actual historical events, Laura's fictional account, and the writing of the book itself. And that might be the ultimate criteria: right, wrong, or indifferent, how does it compare to other accounts published at the same time?

UGH. What a beautifully tragic story. I feel for them both.

This is a great story...it reads like a thriller!

Some years ago I sold a collection of short fiction to a well known UK publisher. They wanted an 'Irish style' cover and asked me to recommend a designer/artist which I did. They looked at samples of the artist's work and picked out the one piece of his that I really did not like. I thought it had no relevance to the stories and protested. Too late...mock-up arrived the following week. I should say that I didn't have an agent, if I had, maybe things would have been different.

Great story! As much as I am huge fan of Salinger's work I find his fussiness so narcissistic. He sounds like too much hard work!

The saddest part is that it seems Lathbury tried his hardest to abide by Salinger's wishes. He let Salinger have say over the spine, the paper used, etc., and extenuating circumstances and miscommunication (or misattribution of motives) got in the way. Applying for CIP data should be fairly standard, but given Salinger's fame, it tipped off a bunch of unwanted media. The fact that some bookstores jacked the price up didn't help either, and undermined any trust Salinger had invested in Lathbury. How heartbreaking for the publisher.

Man, I was on the edge of my seat with that one.

The thing is, only someone big like Salinger could have the luxury of being so picky, and obviously he wasn't as anxious to publish as some of us novice authors are. It's such a competitive business, how can debut authors go about fighting for what we want without being unrealistic or having the publisher cut the threads? They've got enough people knocking, yet I do think authors should have a heavy say, cover-art included.

I remember a best-selling, award-winning author say as he signed the cover of a certain book, "I hate this cover art." Seriously if that guy doesn't get a say then nobody gets a say. And as a side note, I agreed with him. The cover-art was heinous.

I know it's what's inside that counts but it's like an ugly face on your baby. You may love it still, but everyone else is judging your baby by the cover.

That is such an amazing and tragic story! And so beautifully written. Thank you for that link, Jane!

Jane, thank you for this link. What a lovely, sad story. Beyond the outcome, I so enjoyed the crumbs of insight into a writer I have long admired so greatly.

Then there was the irony that, in this case, the publisher was in such awe of the writer and so nervous of losing such a coup that he dared not argue any points or differences of opinion with the writer. As Liesl and eddiestack pointed out, that is much more frequently the experience of the writer, afraid to speak up for fear of losing their publishing deal or imposing their personal taste over marketing know-how. Certainly that's how I feel.

I guess there’s a small moral to this story – beware the press – but, for the most part, I will just take away the tenderness and honesty in this recollection.

Beautiful and interesting story. I think the author was way too demanding, but he kind of earned the right to be. After all, it wasn't he who submitted his work to the publisher, but rather the publisher who approached him.

Still, everyone involved must have learned some great lessons from the experience.

Thanks for sharing this. I really enjoyed it.

I love it that Lathbury won't sell or publish the letters. Salinger must have been hellish to work with, but there is something refreshing about an author who bends over backward not to promote himself.

What a sad story.

It's a shame that Salinger interpreted the media attention as a betrayal by the publisher instead of the inevitable reaction of the press to something that the publisher could not have avoided. Especially since the publisher tried so hard to appease and mollify Salinger, catering to his whims.

I particularly like the fact that the publisher won't sell or publish the letters. That in itself tells me that the man has integrity.

This isn't an easy situation with clear good and bad guys. The joke is that it's neither Macmillan or Amazon who are the bullies here.

You'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone in the record industry with a good word to say about Apple and iTunes. Apple have locked the music industry into a deal that's great for Apple, terrible for the people who make music, and extremely inflexible and tenuous for the consumer. It's not entirely clear exactly what you're buying when you buy something on iTunes, it is clear that Apple can take it away from you at will.

If the publishing industry goes down the Apple route, it'll go the way of the record companies.

Amazon are not saints here, but they are people who buy books in bulk, and when they run something as a loss leader, they bear the brunt of that loss. If they agree a wholesale price with the publisher, then the retail price is Amazon's business - literally.

We're in the early days of ebooks. We don't know how consumers will adopt them, what they'll use them for, we don't know all the advantages and disadvantages, yet. Amazon's model is flexible, can adapt and be revisited. Apple's model is old-fashioned and exploitative, they've basically mesmerized the publishing industry and convinced them to iPad or die.

Apple lose more if the publishing industry stands up to them than the publishing industry gains if it cedes all rights to them.

This is a time to keep options open, to have the people who own the intellectual property and copyrights understand that *they* are the ones with the valuable commodity, and to let consumers work out what they want, rather than lock everyone into a model that's based on what some marketing strategist in a computer company would like it to be solely to maximize hardware sales.

I think it's all a matter of perspective, really. Many large corporations like the big profits, without having to spend much to get them. The music industry complained about iTunes because it mean a smaller income for the labels - still ridiculously good to the average joe, but to corporations who are used to billions in profit losing a billion or two they treat it like it's the end of the world. Now I totally think that musicians should be getting paid for their craft and paid reasonably, but I don't think Apple's the culprit in that industry.

It's the same with Amazon. Amazon wants big profits with little outward cashflow. Macmillan wanted to set their own prices which meant Amazon wouldn't get the ridiculously high profits, so they decided to play hardball. And backlash ensued. Someone on another site said that Amazon needs publishers far more than publishers need Amazon, and I agree. They're not the be-all that they think they are.

I'm a writer and I'm following all this as best I can (and I have a brain for business, so I'm not totally lost or anything), but I have to say, THANK GOD I HAVE MY AGENT TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS.

"but to corporations who are used to billions in profit losing a billion or two they treat it like it's the end of the world."

The problem with that is that the billions are still there - they just go to Apple instead. Not to the musician, not to the record label, not as savings to the consumer - just straight from the consumer to Apple. So, yes, the record company looks at all those billions and goes 'not fair'. And they don't buy as well, they buy instead.

Because it's computers, publisher see the iPad as some holy grail that will get kids reading and make all their books shiny and all singing, all dancing. They think Apple are doing them a favor.

Just imagine, for a moment, that it was just another size of paper book. Call it a padback. Now read the terms of the Apple agreement, pretending it's just some new format of book. No agent or publisher would fall for it. But the iPad's got wireless, so WOW, better just hand over the content for practically nothing.

I think the words in a book are a pretty important component. There are actually plenty of people in publishing who laugh at that idea, but call me old-fashioned.

People will buy an iPad if the content justifies it. They won't if it doesn't. Apple want to get as much content for as little money as they can, and they're going to succeed, because the publishing industry is like a little old lady who falls for the man who comes round offering to take away all her clutter, and he'll do it for only $20, just hand over the house keys. And it's almost funny, because the iTunes model is right there, the old lady next door who did the same with the same guy and woke up the next day to find her house had been stripped bare.

Amazon are on the side of the angels, here. Or, at the very least, they're the ones supporting the core business of publishers - selling actual books for actual money.

This about says it all:

From link - Amazon: "...we will have to capitulate and accept Macmillan's terms because Macmillian has a monopoly over their own titles..." [italics added]

To a monopolist, everything is a monopoly, or attempt at monopoly, is it not?

It reminds me of an article I read in some tech magazine I was browsing through, when I was working as a temp, bored out of my mind - software developers were talking politics - one was saying he was a libertarian, because, see, now that we have computers, we don't need government anymore, people should just be free to do whatever they want, unleash their creativity, we'll all be awash in money anyway [I paraphrase and satirize, slightly], so we just don't need that pesky regulation'n'legislation, or extra-pesky concepts like "fairness," or even "justice," all that creaky irrelevant pre-computer socioeconomic "architecture," so to speak.

It's almost a talismanic faith in small devices - because I carry X, therefore (for instance) socialists and fascists will never be battling it out in the streets of my suburb! I'm protected by my iPod! As if certain social disturbances, brought on by economic imbalance (to put it nicely), are precluded by the mere existence of a Kindle or an iPad. But then how'd that hoary word "monopoly," bewhiskered and with a chest full of medals, get into the discussion in the first place?

Note: My riff on "monopoly" is a response to Carolyn Kellogg's discussion of it, in the Jacket Copy link. Great link!

"Amazon are on the side of the angels, here. Or, at the very least, they're the ones supporting the core business of publishers - selling actual books for actual money."

Can't say I agree with this. Bookstores still account for the majority of book sales, as I understand it Amazon doesn't account for a huge part of them. I still stand by the statement that Amazon needs publishers more than publishers need Amazon. Bullying them is not the way Amazon should have gone.

Um, Jane? Amazon won.

Their removal of books was an attempt to show Macmillan that they needed Amazon not based on money, not based on what we involved in the industry think, but by getting a rise out of the fans.

By capitulating on Sunday night, Amazon made certain that they would get the whole story included in the papers come Monday morning, and appear to be the good guy in the fight to the group that really matters - consumers.

Amazon was pricing at $9.99 because it's a price point that is supported by market research to maximize profits through volume. To achieve market saturation, Amazon was willing to take a loss on each sale in order to grow the market at what they believe to be a sustainable level. That's a hell of a commitment.

Under the Macmillan deal, Amazon will make between $4 and $5 per book which is a mathematically infinite improvement over the previous deal.

Macmillan now does have near-complete control over their own pricing and are capable of adjusting prices at will (or reasonably close to it). This leads to two questions - if publishers won't price books at a level that the market will tolerate, is publishing ready to counter actual eBook piracy? And second, what type of structure does Macmillan have in place to keeping up with royalties owed to authors in an age of dynamic pricing?

"Bookstores still account for the majority of book sales, as I understand it Amazon doesn't account for a huge part of them."

No.

http://www.fonerbooks.com/booksale.htm

I find this hard to believe too, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I remember the first depictions of African-Americans in books; they were essentially white people made to look dark. I've also seen other book covers featuring Caucasian-looking black characters. It's hard to imagine the opposite happening.

There's another issue here too. It's always struck me as odd that some artists obviously don't read the books they're illustrating. As a child, it really used to bother me when a character was described one way in a book and rendered in an entirely different way by the illustrator. Surely this could be easily remedied by better communication between illustrators and publishers.

Here Here. Obviously if YA of color cannot be depicted on the cover, they shouldnt be reading these books either (and paying for them), or for that matter, when we... er... they, grow up, not be writing them either!

Wow. I just feel bad for the authors, who really get no say in the cover. Expecting my cover art soon, and will be paying attention to details.

What a "ridonkulous" assumption on some publishers' part. By that reasoning, I guess The Color Purple cover should have featured violet-colored characters? The film industry obviously (and thankfully) doesn't take this stance, and it hasn't seemed to hurt their box office takes. grr

That surprises me as one of my all time favorite books, that I read as a child over 30 years ago, is "Phillip Hall Likes Me I Reckon Maybe" and the cover is very true to character, a lovely young girl of color. As a typical elementary student it was the cover that made my decision to read it.

Well, as long as there aren't books with people of color on the cover, I suppose they won't sell very many of them, will they...

I think the "books with people of color on the cover don't sell" argument is inherantly wrong because, as far as I've seen, there's been no study to prove it. Has there been a study to compare how books with people of color on them sell compared to books with white people on their covers? And if they do sell less, is there another reason (e.g. they were aimed a niche audience, shelved obscurely, just happened to be more poorly written and reviewed, etc.)? I don't think publishers can make this claim until they start putting people of other races on their covers and compare how they sell. As Colette said above me, books with people of color on the cover can't sell if they don't exist.

Furthermore, why wouldn't they? I'd like to believe our society isn't that backwards still. Our president is black, as are many of our biggest entertainers. Are we really willing to watch them on screen, but can't face seeing them on the books we read?

I hope people continue talking about this because it's the only way to make the publishers see. If we boycotted these books, we'd only be hurting the authors, who have little-to-zero say in the cover design, and that would only give the publishers ammunition for their arguments.

I still can't believe they did it, and more than once. It's underestimating the buying public, and like Colette and Kristin have said we can't buy stories about people of colour if we don't know they exist. Give us some credit publishers.

I totally agree with you about the cover – it just doesn’t look interesting to me. I’d seen some reviews and talk about this book before the controversy, but I didn’t even dig far enough to find out what the book was about because it looked like dozens of other fantasy books. Meh. I would have been MUCH more intrigued if it had had a dark-skinned girl on the cover.

I haven’t even seen the book, so I may be speaking out of turn here, but part of the outrage about LIAR came about because Justine Larbalestier came out with her own response to the disappointing cover – she, also, was stunned by the “racefail” (that term is new to me….) I’m curious – has anyone heard Jaclyn Dolamore, the author of Magic Under Glass? She is not a person of color – has she weighed in on this? I’m also curious about the, UK cover, which doesn’t come any closer to portraying people of color -it just shows two slightly Edwardian children – I’d say both white – next to a piano. What’s up with that? You can see it if you click on the My Books link at Dolamore’s website –
http://jaclyndolamore.com/

First thing I did when I read about this was go to Dolamore’s website. Didn’t find any reference to the coverfail. I’m sure other bloggers will be commenting on it.
I think that Larbalestier waited to comment as well – it’s my recollection that there was a lot already said before she weighed in. The controversy gained outrage, maybe, when we found out that the author was not in favor of the cover. I imagine that if you’re an author of a book that does this, it makes you pretty uncomfortable. I would think it required a lot of consideration of multiple issues before commenting.

That’s a good post you linked to. I vote for boycotting and annoying them with intelligent but rude emails telling them what assholes they are. Clearly there is more to be said about this. I think it needs to move from blogs (well, not disappear from blogs, just grow out of them) and go to bigger news sources. Why isn’t the Times reporting on this? Or Publisher’s Weekly? Or Writer’s Digest? We need to make people who aren’t already attune to publishing issues attune to this.

Rethinking my earlier comment: It’s a very different thing for a debut author to have to buck her publisher’s cover decisions than it is for Justine Larbalestier to do so … I don’t think Dolamore should really be asked to explain her silence (well, it’s not even silence, since the video trailer she’s responsible for does show a person of color) – but I do think Bloomsbury should have to explain their decision. Last time, with LIAR, they said the cover reflected the unreliable narrator, and I thought that was quite a stretch.) I’d be much more interested in how they explain the latest lapse in judgment – not having read the book, I don’t know what kind of metaphor the marketing people thought the race switch could reflect – it’s going to be another stretch, I’m thinking…..

http://fabulousfrock.livejournal.com/344808.html

People LOVE a soapbox WITHOUT actual information.
Here’s the truth.
Read the book before creating chaos.

I think it depends on how the author viewed most of his work.

If he was one of those who never thought anything was "good enough" - then maybe it was perfectionism that led him to request it not be published ... and maybe it's a beautifully wrought piece of work - ready for the light of day.

But what if it were a "shitty" first draft? Not perfected and polished. I'm not sure I'd want a "less than my best effort" included in the canonical record of my work.

And God forbid someone post-passing comment on how it didn't stand up - and maybe the other works were "flukes".

The problem in this case, I think, is that Nabokov was once asked in an interview if he would ever let critics / scholars have a look at his first drafts. He said never, and said it would be like offering up his sputum for examination.

The Original of Laura is a very rough draft, and reads as such, egregious misspellings and all. I don't think Nabokov would have approved. But he's dead. And I, for one, and glad to have the chance to catch a glimpse of Nabokov's inner workings. It reveals him as human, for one thing, and not a Writing Deity as his superlative prose sometimes makes him appear to be.

I'm actually not in favor of going against an author's last wishes, because I would not want someone to go against my own wishes like that. My first drafts are rough. Often, when revising, I find that some of my points didn't come through the way I intended, and I would not want the world to judge me off something that just came out wrong. I feel like my writing is mine until I choose to share it, and would resent someone else making that choice for me. It'd be even more so if a past work of mine had been considered genius. Perhaps the newest one would have been too if I'd had time to finish, but releasing it while sloppy just casts doubt on everything I've ever written.

Somehow that made me think of Christopher Tolkien publishing everything and anything his father had ever scribbled down on a piece of paper.

I thought of Tolkien's work too.

I don't even let my husband read my first drafts.

Well yes, I do think it's OK for someone to override a writer's instructions to destroy that writer's work after death. Apart from Nobokov, I think only one other example need be cited to illustrate the point: Franz Kafka.

Mischa KK Bagley.

It's always OK to disrespect somebody's wishes because it suits you!

If it were me, I'd come back to life just to strangle the bastard. And possibly eat his brain.

I have read a number of posts about the KidLit conference and it's amazing how each one mentions similar but also different aspects. Thanks for your overview; it reminded me of why I enjoyed it so much (and was so tired Sunday!).

Thanks for the insight on the FTC blogger-reviewer thingy-impending fiasco. Somehow, I got the impression that some misguided regulator was trying to save newspaper review columnists, though only a feeling. Did you sense that the FTC was backpedaling from an indefensible and arbitrarily targeted stance they had taken? I can't imagine it would have stood a court test.

Nothing wrong with being fangirly. We all get that way sometimes. (Or, those of us who REALLY like authors do, anyway.)

And a like button for blogs? Totally love that idea.

Mary: That's what I love about these roundups too! The more posts out there, the fuller picture you get.

Dan: I don't get the impression that it was backpedaling so much as they put what they had out there without much clarification. Then somebody got ahold of it and went "DOOOOOM" without getting all the facts straight, and of course stuff like this spreads like smallpox on the Internet. I am happy that they're making an effort to respond to it. Engle told us that the FTC is in reality quite a small agency in terms of manpower--another reason they have no desire to police all the blogs on the Internet.

Melissa: The geek flag flies high with me. Glad to know I'm not alone.

waves hi! (look at me, I'm commenting.)

Another great recap! Great to meet you and relive the fun of the weekend!

Oh, how I love, love, love, love, LOVE Story Corps. And no, these are not books that you can tell were written by an African American. I don’t suppose they’re ABOUT African Americans… not from the description, and based on the fact that they actually SOLD…? I guess they were about Caucasians.

Wonder what Ol’ Frank Yerby would have thought of LIAR.

It’s a shame, I think. That an African American author had to write about white guys in order to be successful…

At times, I mark up the copy of the book I'm reviewing. So it's not quite in a fresh, resale, send back, get money condition when I'm done. How does the FTC view that?

Honestly, I think fostering a love of reading is more important than Required Reading. I hated most of the required reading I had to do in school, and I'm an annoying smarty-pants who was (and still is!) always always reading lots of books. "Good" books and "bad" books and "classic" books and "new" books and any kind of books I could get my greedy little hands on.

I'm a librarian, and a daughter of a librarian, so reading all the time is the norm in the world I come from. But I still think assigned reading sucks.

My take is here, although I wish I had know about the SBTB post when I wrote it, because I would have had stuff to say about that too!

Perhaps it's more of an indication of how well Justine created a character you can identify with.

Possible, but probably impossible for me to sort out at this point.

Very true that we each have our own default setting that defines how we picture the characters, and the cover image certainly contributes.

But I have to wonder, if Larbalestier's prose couldn't convince you that Micah was black, is it only a Bloomsbury/white girl issue?

Thank you for saying it! I feel that way too...I feel like the "white girl" cover captures the *tone* of the book better - it's much more ominous and foreboding. You can't just slap a person of color on the cover and have it be "fixed", seeing as I think the new cover fails in both Micah's purported appearance and in getting the tone of the story.

You're right - probably impossible to sort out at this point. How much can we really step outside our world view and our life experiences when we read a story?

You may be onto something.

The thing is, for a long time you don't realize why Larbalestier's taken such pains with Micah's appearance; the issue of race doesn't initially take on a lot of significance in the story. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if Micah's race is significant, in and of itself. And I can't say much more than that without unloading spoilers.

Shoot me an email if you want to talk specifics!

Interesting thoughts. This whole issue just underscores for me how colour, when you come right down to it, isn't (or shouldn't be) that big of a factor in how we view each other. Obviously, our similarities are more significant than we give them credit for... especially if we can't tell the difference between the narration of a white character and a narration of a black character.

But I do wonder if that ambiguity was intentional on the part of the author...

Hi,
My daughter recently won your first Ghost Huntress book and has just started reading it:) As her mom I like to think of myself as a realist. I think kids hear worse language on the bus, on TV etc. etc. I don't think it's coarse. I'm also an aspiring writer and read tons of YA books. I see other authors use rougher language and I'm okay with that. We have to use the language true to our characters. I believe there are always going to be some people who need to 'comment' on things. If they're so offended all I say is don't read it. You need to think of your market and ultimately, your characters.

I honestly have no problem with cursing. In fact, I do it a lot in my own life, mainly because I think it's funny. My roommate thinks the same way.

But I mean, like the previous commenter said, kids and teenagers hear so much worse everywhere else and even if they don't, they'll hear it eventually. So I don't think it's a problem for there to be cursing in YA novels. It's just not a big deal.

Back in high school, I heard so many F-bombs being dropped before even first period started that not even the most cursey of YA (or adult!) novels would frazzle me. It's just reality, so I don't think anyone should be bothered by a little course language in YA.

This really surprises me, Marley, because I don't think of your language as coarse at all.

AT ALL.

But for what it's worth, with my own books, I've been surprised by the occasional element that readers/parents/reviewers have taken issue with, and equally surprised by the ones left alone that I thought were ripe for a gripe!

Really I have no problem with "course language" in books at all. I mean there are books for certain ages, or at least recommended ages so what do people expect to find in the text. Teens such as myself have been exposed to much worse things and language at school and around friends. So I don't think it should bother parents to find that there is some "course language" in YA books, because it is not new or shocking to teens at all. Believe me when I say we've heard worse, and for some that may be an understatement.

People cuss. Teens Cuss. It's the nature of things. And you can't dumb it down by saying, "Gosh darnit" "shoot" or " Sonuvaseabiscuit" when it's not what they really say. It wouldn't sound right. Although it would be funny if you had a character that actually talked like that.

I agree with everybody else.

I think it's just part of the world now, Marley. I try to limit what I use in my novels, too. But sometimes, there isn't a substitute that won't sound fake, you know? Oh, sugar -- doens't always work. ;)

Heather

The Parents that are complaining need to get their butts out there and listen to what their children are hearing in the real world. I don't find your cursing offensive as it's reality. The words you use are pretty much standard for most.

Go sit out at a school and listen to these kids today. Every 2nd word starts with "F". That's what these parents need to be complaining about.

Your editor's more likely shaking her head at your use of "course language" than any alleged coarse language.

:)

I like it, and I think it bears a strong resemblance to the cover of Sovay by Celia Rees (also published by Bloomsbury).

Having not read the book — and all of my comments must be seasoned with this truth, I think:

It’s gorgeous. What large, lovely eyes she has. What marvelous hair. What clear, beautiful skin. What sex appeal.

How thoroughly unlike the character she looks.

Having perused Larbalestier’s blog during this whole thing, I read that the character had “nappy” hair — curly. We got that, check. I also read that she was UGLY, and able to pass, at times, for a boy. Ummm, no. But, it’s a brown face, and that’s what the original dispute was about. People who protested probably feel mollified, Larbalestier is happier, and the world can go on.

Of course, this isn’t touching on my personal bias: she’s very …close to the Eurocentric Ideal. She has lighter skin, and a fairly straight, narrow nose. She looks like a model.

While I don’t have a personal hang-up with this, it’s kind of Same Song, Second Verse. It’s not that most YA covers actually resemble, in any way, the characters therein, but I have observed that there’s a bias toward lighter skin, more Eurocentric features, and sort of middle-of-the-road appearance. That’s a long-standing pet peeve of mine anyway. I think this was a nice offering, but it’s back to the standard, you know? Airbrushed perfection.

- sorry, I should have said,

“I have observed that there’s a bias toward lighter skin, more Eurocentric features, and sort of middle-of-the-road appearance in ethnic minority cover models.

Tanita: in the book, she’s 3/4 white and 1/4 black. And she embodies the white belief that blacks are just whites with suntans; her experiences, her cultural references, her language, etc., is all white.

I find it fascinating that the identified problem with this cover was so, er, skin deep. There’s a bigger issue here. The author wrote a white girl, then added ‘nappy hair’ and pretended she was black. Because that’s what blacks are, you see–whites with dark skin and nappy hair.

Frank: WHOA.
WHOA. I continue to reserve judgment until I read the book, but boy howdy does your comment raise the brows!

Hey – what a great cover for Dream Jordan (what a great name, too!). I’ll have to look this book up.

And yes, the cover model is closer, perhaps, in terms of pigment shade. But “Hot Girl” was never said to be actually ugly, was she? It’s all part of what we can and cannot believe, as the “Liar” in question is definitely an unreliable narrator!

Reserve judgement? What’re you, -responsible-?

Yeah, that’s a good idea. You are wise.

I’m not, though, and it kinda burns me up, this idea that it’s somehow a ‘black girl YA’, when the girl is written as white by a white, and just wears sufficient blackface to claim some sorta ethnic diversity badge.

Taking a deep breath now, and emulating the wisdom …

I love the cover of Hot Girl, and its a great book.

My interview with the author
http://thehappynappybookseller.blogspot.com/2008/12/dream-jordan-interview.html

That one epic-length comment? I Ironically, it's by an editor at Tor Fantasy who made and sanctioned several incredibly racist and offensive comments during the blogosphere's spring major "Racism in Sci-Fi/Fantasy" imbroglio, RaceFail '09. I honestly think she and her husband need to learn Racism 101 before they start lecturing other people, although I'm sure some of the points on the BoingBoing post are valid.

I met Lynne Reid Banks once, author of The Indian in the Cupboard and others. She was signing her books and went off on a tangent about the covers. She hated most of them, particularly the historical fiction because of the blatant inaccuracies. It was actually kind of fun to hear her go off like that.

Thanks for noticing that no where in that first post about the US cover do I ever say that I like the cover. I was very careful about that. Thanks!

[...] response to yesterday’s post has been astonishing. I am overwhelmed. I received more mail in a single day than I normally do in [...]

you know i just read Justine’s first blog about the US cover and no where in that post does she say she likes it yes but she also doesn’t seem concerned with the fact that the girl on the cover is in no way representative of Micah. I mean why didn’t she pick up on that and maybe say something (via blog) from the very beginning. In that post shes saying how glad she is that its on the cover of the catalogue and how she hopes the cover helps the book sell. All her outrage now seems kinda like shes jumping on some sort of band wagon, no?

I don’t understand your comment about Little Brother: “Too bad they didn’t use this one! I like it better than the one with the photo on it…” Isn’t that the cover they used?

Sabrina: You just don’t. Covers go through sales and marketing- the people who will be selling your book to booksellers, libraries, and of course, to the reading public. You can’t tell somebody they’re stupid, their judgment is bad, and you are disgusted with them and then expect them to go out and do the best they possibly can do to champion your book.

It sucks, but authors don’t have a whole lot of power over what happens to their books once it leaves our hands and goes into copyedits. We are stuck with the covers on our books unless somebody else hates them- and it is still our book, our words inside that *we* still need to champion. Usually, somebody else is “The buyer at Barnes & Noble.” or “Every print reviewer in the world.” Publishers aren’t terribly interested in authors’ feelings on their covers (or their titles.) That’s marketing, not production.

I know an author who *hated* the cover art for her first book. She did complain to her publisher, and they at least changed the art so that it was not inaccurate to the story, which it originally had been. It’s still not a very appealing cover, though it’s far better than those Duds. Fortunately the book won a great award, so it’s selling okay. But as well as it could have…?

Anyway, she’s always seemed to me to be pretty quiet about not liking the cover art. She’ll talk about it to people she knows, but doesn’t take it any further. I’ve always assumed she didn’t want anyone to see her as bad-mouthing her publisher.

However, her second book came out recently, and she *has* been vocal in talking about how much she LOVES the cover art for it. So I think maybe we can often read between the lines.

Would you? If it was your book and you didn’t get a cover choice you felt good about it, would you go around dissing the cover?
No. You can’t do that. Maybe it’s not the professional thing to do. But also it’s not the smart thing to do – at the outset anyway. I think Justine did it just the way I would have…

Ah this is what happens when you rush a post you were saving… I can’t even remember what I was referring to – and didn’t proofread it well enough to notice the mistake. If I figure it out, I’ll fix that!

Authors who love their covers are quick to tell you so and give the cover artist credit.
Four I can think of off of the top of my head
Tanita Davis – Mare’s War
Lisa Mantchev – Eyes Like Stars
James Kennedy – Order of the Odd Fish
James Preller – Bystander
check out Preller’s post about the cover
http://www.jamespreller.com/2009/07/09/final-cover-bystander/

I don't see why publishers don't steer clear of photographs altogether, especially in cases where they think a good representative picture of the character might be unappealing to some people. Books don't have to have a picture of the protagonist on the cover.

So so sad. Thanks for this post, Sarah.

What if Bloomsbury put a picture of a black girl looking into a mirror and the reflection is of a white, Asian or Native American?

I also have to agree with La Coccinelle. A picture of the protagonist limits my imagination and eliminates any connection with real life characters I may know and relate to.

CM

At which point the entire book, and all my hard work, crumbles.

Gah... as a writer, that just breaks my heart.

Thanks for this post.

I love your squirm-inducing recommendations. And yet it makes me want to cry out of frustration.

They system feels so broken. One could go on and on about the issues. Alas, I'll keep trying to be part of the solution.

Confession: starting to feel like an endless road!

Happens in libraries too, you know. Even better when they say things like "can you find me something a little less... urban?" In friggin' New York City, no less. I get them "Sounder".

Sounder.

Oh, you dirty rat. That's fabulous.

You see what happens when popular taste dictates what we see on tv....Scary.