I read it and thought it was great! Un-delete! We have a moral responsibility to support the truth- in all facets of our work: as writers, as educators, as publishers.
I agree with you 100%. I was very happy when Milo's book was cancelled.
No one has a right to be published. Let 'em self publish, start a Substack or kick it old school and nail their manifestos to a tree.
And yes, while I'm all for publishers making money and diverse voices and opinions, publishers need to act as responsibly as we all do with what they choose to promote, platform and endorse. (and yes, agreeing to publish is a tacit endorsement)
I haven't had time to say so until now, but your post was one of the best -- maybe the best to date -- I've read about our history's turbulent time and how it relates to business (in this case, publishing). I hope you didn't delete it because it's informed and insightful.
Thanks so much for this piece. It was a moment of saniity in a tilted world. Vance's book is truly terrible. ( I didn't buy it but read the 3, 2, and 1 star reviews--all of which were articulate and intelligent and negative. ). I'll continue to publish surrealism--a freedom of the imagination that opens the doors to what is now considered "radical".
Plenty standing with you to raise the standard of all reporting. And written word. I am saddened when fact checking no longer resonates as part of the reporting process.
There have been those with positions to stand with the truth before. You are in good company.
Thank you. Very clear and true. There are ethical lines, publishers, agents and even publicists must respect. I have turned down books that I can't work with for such reasons. I applaud your courage.
Thank you for writing. It is going to be hard to speak up courageously in the coming months. Not just because there may be actual in-real-life threats and dangers (I'm thinking of the Sandy Hook parents and the countless others in history who have spoken up in the face of menace), but also because to think and reflect and write well requires sensitivity. The exact opposite of what now seems needed to maneuver on the public stage.
Kathleen, I read the original post and this one. While I understand the reasoning behind deleting it (I feel vulnerable when publishing opinion pieces too), I think you made some very valid points about the need for publishers to act with integrity and responsibility. Your assessment of what is taking place right now was completely valid and you should not censor yourself because others disagree.
Now is a scary time, and what comes next does worry me. I do wonder though, is it not the responsibility of the publisher, the author, the reader to determine how they will respond to books that elicit a deep response - negative or otherwise? Sometimes we might choose to be challenged, but that’s our choice, and other times we might choose to ignore what will upset us and others. That said, texts that incite violence and vitriol are not what I seek so my desire for free speech may have self-imposed limits.
“I’m not accustomed to being front-facing and am too sensitive for my own good.“ As are so many writers! Thank you for continuing to speak up about the publishing industry in spite of this.
I’ll say what I said last night: This kind of over the top hysteria is why a former president was shot over the weekend and why many people are totally fine with that.
You are entirely off-base. Did I even mention the former guy? I did not. Your interpretation of this is not one based on knowledge of the publishing industry. I ignored you last night, but I refuse to allow YOU to characterize what I wrote as hysteria. Did you not see the footage of Jan 6? Do you need reading comprehension to understand what Project 2025 is? Are you aware of the damage Alex Jones has caused for parents of the Sandy Hook shooting and that he was found liable? Nothing--not a thing I wrote--was over the top.
Did you mention the former guy? Well, your post was about the former president's VP pick and how the publishing industry shouldn't promote his book because you believe Trump's presidency is dangerous to the country. Maybe I lack reading comprehension, but sounds like you did. And my comment is that your desire to censor a book is indeed hyperbolic and is an example of the irrational discourse that led to Trump getting shot.
You need a reading comprehension class because not a single phrase of what I wrote says that the publisher shouldn't promote Vance's book. Nor did I say the book should be censored. Your kind is really good at making stuff up, so please tell me who the irrational person is here. If you love Trump so much, go pander to your 100 subscribers and get your little baby feelings off my page.
Whether you agree or disagree, one thing she is not is hysterical. She is expressing an opinion. My opinion is that it isn’t just the publishing world that needs to be thoughtful and responsible. Both are qualities that are rare these days.
And true courage: Kathleen has that in spades. She doesn’t have to be so generous with her thoughts about publishing, she probably wouldn’t have a job if she weren’t opinionated, and we get to benefit from someone in the publishing world talking to us.
Ok, so if you’re thinking this essay is more measured and better than the first one, it sounds like she might appreciate that positive comment, where you and she agree this is the better essay. Am I on the right track?
I read it and thought it was great! Un-delete! We have a moral responsibility to support the truth- in all facets of our work: as writers, as educators, as publishers.
I agree with you 100%. I was very happy when Milo's book was cancelled.
No one has a right to be published. Let 'em self publish, start a Substack or kick it old school and nail their manifestos to a tree.
And yes, while I'm all for publishers making money and diverse voices and opinions, publishers need to act as responsibly as we all do with what they choose to promote, platform and endorse. (and yes, agreeing to publish is a tacit endorsement)
I haven't had time to say so until now, but your post was one of the best -- maybe the best to date -- I've read about our history's turbulent time and how it relates to business (in this case, publishing). I hope you didn't delete it because it's informed and insightful.
You were brave and correct, don't second guess yourself.
Thanks so much for this piece. It was a moment of saniity in a tilted world. Vance's book is truly terrible. ( I didn't buy it but read the 3, 2, and 1 star reviews--all of which were articulate and intelligent and negative. ). I'll continue to publish surrealism--a freedom of the imagination that opens the doors to what is now considered "radical".
Sorry for others replies and comments.
Plenty standing with you to raise the standard of all reporting. And written word. I am saddened when fact checking no longer resonates as part of the reporting process.
There have been those with positions to stand with the truth before. You are in good company.
Thank you. Very clear and true. There are ethical lines, publishers, agents and even publicists must respect. I have turned down books that I can't work with for such reasons. I applaud your courage.
Thank you for writing. It is going to be hard to speak up courageously in the coming months. Not just because there may be actual in-real-life threats and dangers (I'm thinking of the Sandy Hook parents and the countless others in history who have spoken up in the face of menace), but also because to think and reflect and write well requires sensitivity. The exact opposite of what now seems needed to maneuver on the public stage.
Thank you, Kathleen. New here and finding what you share so helpful; all of it. ❤️
I totally agree. Thanks for having the courage to speak up...twice!
Kathleen, I read the original post and this one. While I understand the reasoning behind deleting it (I feel vulnerable when publishing opinion pieces too), I think you made some very valid points about the need for publishers to act with integrity and responsibility. Your assessment of what is taking place right now was completely valid and you should not censor yourself because others disagree.
Now is a scary time, and what comes next does worry me. I do wonder though, is it not the responsibility of the publisher, the author, the reader to determine how they will respond to books that elicit a deep response - negative or otherwise? Sometimes we might choose to be challenged, but that’s our choice, and other times we might choose to ignore what will upset us and others. That said, texts that incite violence and vitriol are not what I seek so my desire for free speech may have self-imposed limits.
Thank you for your post, Kathleen. I admire your clarity, conviction, and point of view. So relevant and helpful.
“I’m not accustomed to being front-facing and am too sensitive for my own good.“ As are so many writers! Thank you for continuing to speak up about the publishing industry in spite of this.
Hang in there. Your intent was clear.
Thank you for speaking out.
I’ll say what I said last night: This kind of over the top hysteria is why a former president was shot over the weekend and why many people are totally fine with that.
You are entirely off-base. Did I even mention the former guy? I did not. Your interpretation of this is not one based on knowledge of the publishing industry. I ignored you last night, but I refuse to allow YOU to characterize what I wrote as hysteria. Did you not see the footage of Jan 6? Do you need reading comprehension to understand what Project 2025 is? Are you aware of the damage Alex Jones has caused for parents of the Sandy Hook shooting and that he was found liable? Nothing--not a thing I wrote--was over the top.
Did you mention the former guy? Well, your post was about the former president's VP pick and how the publishing industry shouldn't promote his book because you believe Trump's presidency is dangerous to the country. Maybe I lack reading comprehension, but sounds like you did. And my comment is that your desire to censor a book is indeed hyperbolic and is an example of the irrational discourse that led to Trump getting shot.
You need a reading comprehension class because not a single phrase of what I wrote says that the publisher shouldn't promote Vance's book. Nor did I say the book should be censored. Your kind is really good at making stuff up, so please tell me who the irrational person is here. If you love Trump so much, go pander to your 100 subscribers and get your little baby feelings off my page.
lol - how much for a Zoom call on how to use Substack so I can up my subscriber total to that grand total of 1,000 you have?
Oy vey, really? That's the best you've got? Sad.
Censorship doesn't mean what you think it means
Hysteria!
Whether you agree or disagree, one thing she is not is hysterical. She is expressing an opinion. My opinion is that it isn’t just the publishing world that needs to be thoughtful and responsible. Both are qualities that are rare these days.
And true courage: Kathleen has that in spades. She doesn’t have to be so generous with her thoughts about publishing, she probably wouldn’t have a job if she weren’t opinionated, and we get to benefit from someone in the publishing world talking to us.
I’m a fan.
Which paragraphs here were over the top or hysterical? I’m missing that.
Do we know the 20-year-old shooter was involved with and motivated by publishing decisions?
Has there been a large-scale survey showing many people were fine with the shooting, or is that an assumption used to create enemies?
I’m having trouble seeing your response grounded in this essay.
She deleted the post from last night that argued Vance’s book is dangerous and shouldn’t be promoted.
I never said it shouldn’t be promoted. Stop lying.
Sounds pretty different from the current one.
for good reason
Ok, so if you’re thinking this essay is more measured and better than the first one, it sounds like she might appreciate that positive comment, where you and she agree this is the better essay. Am I on the right track?