Hillybilly Elegy is a pretty moderate book politically, and it's not all that political anyway. Vance criticizes white people who draw government benefits and then turn around and criticize Black people for doing the same. Contrary to a lot of what you read, he does not advocate cutting safety net programs. He criticized white working class culture for its sexism. Yeah, he's changed his tune drastically over the past 8 years. but no one could have predicted that when they signed his book contract! I'm not sure what a more "responsible" position would be, even now that we do know. The book itself isn't objectionable, and it is in the public interest to see how much he's betrayed the values he expressed in it.
That is not what I am talking about. The book is what gave him a national platform, and I do agree that it shows how much he has strayed, but it was also debunked by many Appalachian scholars. Secondly, the point is not just about the Vance book. It is really about the business decisions publishers make and how they affect staff and other authors. As I have written in other comments, I had to work on Woody Allen's memoir, RFK's Fauci book, Alan Dershowitz's books, Paul Manafort's book, and more. I have seen how those business decisions made staff feel, and I am asking that the industry take more care in making them.
“ I have seen how those business decisions made staff feel, and I am asking that the industry take more care in making them.”
As an author who is trying to understand who the industry works, this statement is very confusing.
It seems that maybe the industry just needs to hire people with thicker skins? Who don’t feel personally attacked by working on books they don’t like? Because otherwise this statement sounds like you really want to say “these books shouldn’t be published” but don’t really want to say that part out loud?
Not what I’m saying. People don’t understand the difference between a business decision + free speech. I’m saying that publishers should take more care in choosing some projects. I’ve worked on books that many disagreed with (Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, RFK, and more). It’s not about thick skins—we all have them. It’s about what’s really worth publishing. It’s always a business decision. If you read the piece carefully, you’d see that I said I think consumers should decide what to buy, but that publishers also have a responsibility to examine their company’s values. People confuse business decisions with censorship, and they are not the same thing. Also, if you haven’t worked in publishing, you really don’t have the right to say who needs thicker skins. You don’t know what it’s like internally.
You are 100% correct that I have no idea what it's like internally, and I am sorry if these comments are abrasive. I'm trying to learn how to navigate a new industry, and in general your substack has been very helpful. I hope you take these comments at face value. I have friends on the left and right, and have been pleasantly surprised with how well everyone gets along in the real world. Most people are doing their best.
All that said, I am still trying to wrap my head around how these decisions work. Is it a business decision or a values decision? You seem to be saying both, and I understand that there are surely publishers out there who lean more free-speech, libertarian and would be more likely to publish RFK et al on values-based decisions. But my guess is the RFK books sell better than books by authors without a platform (again, no experience in publishing, just in business in general). So from a business perspective, if I were setting up a publishing house, I would be excited to publish books with all sorts of political leanings to capture the market share of those authors. I may even hire people with diverse political leanings and match them to authors with those perspectives.
It's always a money decision. Always. You can't publish books for the sake of publishing them because the financials won't work. The RFK book on Fauci did really well, but it was less about values and more about knowing there was a huge audience for it and it would create a financial windfall.
What sort of business decisions and what sort of care? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on how Hillbilly Elegy is a useful of example of what you're trying to say. What would a more careful handling of decisions about this book look like? Also, it seems like hardly anyone commenting on this has read the book in its entirety. The book is almost entirely about people Vance knew, so I don't see how Appalachian scholars could debunk it.
Google the book and the word "inaccuracies," and you will see what I mean. It is hard for me to explain care for publishing employees and other authors to people on the outside, but put yourself in the position of employees and authors who are marginalized and have to share space with people who basically hate you because of your race or gender.
I agree that it would be hard to have to work with someone who hated you because of your race or gender, but Hillbilly Elegy is neither racist nor sexist and in fact criticizes people from Vance's community who are. Also, I am in the publishing industry, so feel free to explain what his publisher should have done differently without worryng that I won't understand.
One last thing: Vance is schooled in making people believe that he believes they were forgotten. This is Trump's mode of operation as well, which is dangerous and got him elected. Hillbilly Elegy is Vance's proof of concept that he, in fact, is just like the people he convinces he believes were forgotten. The reality is different. Neither one of them cares. The book is his calling card to the swing states they need to win, and that, to me, is problematic.
I haven’t read this but I did see the film (which wasn’t that good). But isn’t it a memoir? Are you saying J.D. Vance lied about his personal experiences?
I'm not talking about when the book was first published. I just spoke to someone in the media about this--stories are being written--so I would wait to read those. I am not the only one with an opinion about it. I don't really understand the defense of him. I have explained pretty much everything. It's all I have time for.
I caught it before you scrapped it. Very sharp, and clear, and necessary. The actual facts and intelligent nuance are so lacking from cultural discourse. Good shit. Thank you. Keep it up.
I read it and I admit I was surprised by your stance. I disagreed with it — pretty strongly too.
But you of course have a right to your opinion.
These views about free speech and expression elicit strong responses across the spectrum. We can vigorously debate them and remain civil at the same time.
I honestly don’t want any one person or group curating for me what they think is appropriate and just and right. Sadly, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
Publishing also is a business, and publishers will produce books they think will sell — even putrid ones.
So the readers are the customers. They make the decisions. If these putrid books don’t sell, publishers will cease producing them. If they do sell, publishers will produce more.
I don’t believe in squelching ideas in print. Even the ugliest ones.
I will decide with my mind and my wallet.
I value your opinion. It’s food for thought. We need to have these discussions.
Thank you for being respectful. I understand why some people might disagree. Books are almost always curated anyway because agents and editors are their gatekeepers, and what interests them is totally subjective. I have worked on Woody Allen's memoir (which Hachette canceled, and I thought they were wrong about that), Alan Dershowitz's books, RFK's book on Fauci, Paul Manafort's book, and more. I felt the worst about the Fauci book because I strongly disagreed with RFK's stance. I am not suggesting censorship--that rarely happens in publishing (if ever). I suggest that publishers take more care when choosing projects from divisive figures. I have seen how those books affect staff, which is why I wrote this. People often forget that publishing staff do not have a choice in what to work on, and some of the authors' ideology directly hurts them or the people they love. That, to me, is a good reason to take a step back and ask if you *really* need to publish certain books. The caveat here is that when a book gets canceled by one publisher, it is almost always picked up by another. I say, let the publishers who specialize in those books & who have staff that support them be the ones to publish them.
I 100% agree that the choice is in the consumer's wallet, but I also care about the publishing community too much NOT to say anything. I hope you can see my point of view.
I have Vance’s book. I read it in its entirety and despite not being on the same side, I did have some empathy for him. I was happy for his success, coming from poverty like that because it’s very unusual and a lot of people are stuck. It also shows how education and opportunity can really change someone. I’m a child of immigrants. Neither of my parents grew up wealthy in post WWII Hong Kong. But guess what? Education helped them. Both sets of grandparents knew that and they found a way to send their children to the best schools they could get them into so they would be able to have better career prospects. Both my mom and my dad came to Canada for graduate school (they met in high school and went to university together) and stayed. My mom worked in IT while my dad was in finance. I grew up in the comfort of suburban Toronto and also have a graduate degree.
I remember a part of the book where Vance tried sparkling water for the first time. I kind LOL’d but also remembered the new experiences my parents had when they arrived for school in the ‘70s and things that were normal to Canadians were new/unknown to them.
Many people liked the book. It was also heavily criticized by Appalachian scholars and others. My point is that the book gave him a platform and emboldened him--he has very extreme views. I don't think he was always like that, or maybe he was, and he is an eloquent liar. The problem I am trying to point out is that book publishing sometimes further platforms people whose ideology is dangerous. I am not suggesting they do anything to Hillbilly Elegy, just that it is now front and center.
I think a lot of people from Appalachia, especially those from his background are resentful of him and view him as sort of a sell-out by going to an elite law school. This happens. Also, his views can be all over the place. He's for the break up of big tech, which is why some of Sillicon Valley is now going for Trump. That's something often associated with the left. At the same time, the social policies are horrible, especially for women.
I have not seen any "hatefull" comments, only comments that disagree with you. There seems to be four or five of us who have understood both of your posts to be in favor of censorship, but only of thoughts and opinions that you disagree with. I detest the fact that one or more neo-nazi groups exist in this country; but I will defend their right to express their opinion under our constitution. That is why we have that freedom-of-speach clause, not just to defend the rights of someone that we agree with; but especially to defend the rights of someone with a minority opinion that we disagree with. Someday we may be the one with the minority opinion.
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.
When a person throws something in the trash, it's usually a mistake to pick it up. Both pieces suggest censorship, no matter your valiant efforts to couch them as something else.
I read the deleted post and this one. I can see why you changed it and I think this is the nature of Substack. Sometimes we need editing. And while I can see the same line of thought thru both.
You said "Ironically, the same people who cry for freedom of speech also try to stifle the voices of those who call for publishing to be better about who gets a book deal. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether or not someone is given a book deal—it is purely a business decision by publishers." You said something similar in your original post: "Book publishing has a responsibility to freedom of speech, but that’s very different from making business decisions to publish books by people with dangerous agendas."
You can't have it both ways: does book publishing have a duty to freedom of speech or not? Right now on this very platform, Jewish writers are sharing their work to build a new book publisher because the existing companies are turning down manuscripts & turning away authors when the person or the content is Jewish or Zionist. Your position is in fact that it's appropriate and somehow serving a greater good for book publishing to turn away manuscripts, judging them and their authors. You are suggesting the policing of books. That the police are the publishers themselves doesn't make it any better. If you want to hear more about what book policing looks like talk with @howardlovy about what's already happening.
I see what you are saying. But I’m still of the opinion that regardless of if publishers do their jobs as you have referred to, and refuse to publish these books, they will still make it to the market. I’m a rebel and if I get told no I find a way to make it happen no matter what.
And I think everyone should. Books that get scrutinized by parents in school libraries have other places they can land. One platform won’t bankrupt the author if they can’t get their books into one place or another; their are countless other avenues to go through.
And the more we try to stop something be it a book like J.D.’s or let’s say Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, for example, if we take what you are saying but put it on a different foot, the rights foot…. And publishers refuse to publish books like this because they disagree with its content, then what have we done? We can’t say publishers can’t print or shouldn’t print books like J.D.’s but then get mad if they don’t print books Maia’s. We are opening that door to then make it harder to get a book published. It’s already hard enough.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So if you say that a controversial book shouldn’t be published, then it goes for every single controversial book out there. What you think is rhetoric and propaganda and controversy isn’t what I might think is…and my opinions about books won’t be yours. Everyone deserves to be heard. You included. But when we put our thoughts out there into the hemisphere, we have to expect push back. That’s how we grow as a society, so that we don’t become divided like we are now. If we stay in our own echo chambers and don’t allow others their opinions, then we no longer have freedom.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be published. I’m saying publishers should take more care in publishing, period. I have worked on Woody Allen’s memoir, Alan Dershowitz’s books, RFK’s book about Fauci, and more. I never said NOT to publish them, but I also know firsthand what effect publishing them has on internal staff and others. I am sure you can’t say the same. I don’t come from a place of naivety, I come from a place of experience. Woody’s book was cancelled by its first publisher. There is always someone who will release these books. My message is to be careful. It’s not censorship to decide not to publish something; it’s a business decision. All of the people you can think of who seem controversial ALREADY have platforms. This is the mistake many people make in the free speech argument. You can decide not to publish a book because you feel your company’s values don’t align with the content. That’s absolutely not censorship. If I were suggesting censorship, I’d say it. I did not write anything that suggests it. It’s also my own opinion. You don’t have to agree, but think about it more. There’s rarely, if ever, censorship in book publishing. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone a book deal.
I’m just commenting to say I love your work. It’s real and honest. Keep writing. Plus, I wanted to prove Vance wrong that childless cat ladies aren’t miserable!
Feels a bit like censorship rhetoric to me. Building a book bonfire?
Hillybilly Elegy is a pretty moderate book politically, and it's not all that political anyway. Vance criticizes white people who draw government benefits and then turn around and criticize Black people for doing the same. Contrary to a lot of what you read, he does not advocate cutting safety net programs. He criticized white working class culture for its sexism. Yeah, he's changed his tune drastically over the past 8 years. but no one could have predicted that when they signed his book contract! I'm not sure what a more "responsible" position would be, even now that we do know. The book itself isn't objectionable, and it is in the public interest to see how much he's betrayed the values he expressed in it.
That is not what I am talking about. The book is what gave him a national platform, and I do agree that it shows how much he has strayed, but it was also debunked by many Appalachian scholars. Secondly, the point is not just about the Vance book. It is really about the business decisions publishers make and how they affect staff and other authors. As I have written in other comments, I had to work on Woody Allen's memoir, RFK's Fauci book, Alan Dershowitz's books, Paul Manafort's book, and more. I have seen how those business decisions made staff feel, and I am asking that the industry take more care in making them.
“ I have seen how those business decisions made staff feel, and I am asking that the industry take more care in making them.”
As an author who is trying to understand who the industry works, this statement is very confusing.
It seems that maybe the industry just needs to hire people with thicker skins? Who don’t feel personally attacked by working on books they don’t like? Because otherwise this statement sounds like you really want to say “these books shouldn’t be published” but don’t really want to say that part out loud?
Not what I’m saying. People don’t understand the difference between a business decision + free speech. I’m saying that publishers should take more care in choosing some projects. I’ve worked on books that many disagreed with (Woody Allen, Alan Dershowitz, RFK, and more). It’s not about thick skins—we all have them. It’s about what’s really worth publishing. It’s always a business decision. If you read the piece carefully, you’d see that I said I think consumers should decide what to buy, but that publishers also have a responsibility to examine their company’s values. People confuse business decisions with censorship, and they are not the same thing. Also, if you haven’t worked in publishing, you really don’t have the right to say who needs thicker skins. You don’t know what it’s like internally.
You are 100% correct that I have no idea what it's like internally, and I am sorry if these comments are abrasive. I'm trying to learn how to navigate a new industry, and in general your substack has been very helpful. I hope you take these comments at face value. I have friends on the left and right, and have been pleasantly surprised with how well everyone gets along in the real world. Most people are doing their best.
All that said, I am still trying to wrap my head around how these decisions work. Is it a business decision or a values decision? You seem to be saying both, and I understand that there are surely publishers out there who lean more free-speech, libertarian and would be more likely to publish RFK et al on values-based decisions. But my guess is the RFK books sell better than books by authors without a platform (again, no experience in publishing, just in business in general). So from a business perspective, if I were setting up a publishing house, I would be excited to publish books with all sorts of political leanings to capture the market share of those authors. I may even hire people with diverse political leanings and match them to authors with those perspectives.
It's always a money decision. Always. You can't publish books for the sake of publishing them because the financials won't work. The RFK book on Fauci did really well, but it was less about values and more about knowing there was a huge audience for it and it would create a financial windfall.
What sort of business decisions and what sort of care? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on how Hillbilly Elegy is a useful of example of what you're trying to say. What would a more careful handling of decisions about this book look like? Also, it seems like hardly anyone commenting on this has read the book in its entirety. The book is almost entirely about people Vance knew, so I don't see how Appalachian scholars could debunk it.
Google the book and the word "inaccuracies," and you will see what I mean. It is hard for me to explain care for publishing employees and other authors to people on the outside, but put yourself in the position of employees and authors who are marginalized and have to share space with people who basically hate you because of your race or gender.
I agree that it would be hard to have to work with someone who hated you because of your race or gender, but Hillbilly Elegy is neither racist nor sexist and in fact criticizes people from Vance's community who are. Also, I am in the publishing industry, so feel free to explain what his publisher should have done differently without worryng that I won't understand.
One last thing: Vance is schooled in making people believe that he believes they were forgotten. This is Trump's mode of operation as well, which is dangerous and got him elected. Hillbilly Elegy is Vance's proof of concept that he, in fact, is just like the people he convinces he believes were forgotten. The reality is different. Neither one of them cares. The book is his calling card to the swing states they need to win, and that, to me, is problematic.
I haven’t read this but I did see the film (which wasn’t that good). But isn’t it a memoir? Are you saying J.D. Vance lied about his personal experiences?
I'm not talking about when the book was first published. I just spoke to someone in the media about this--stories are being written--so I would wait to read those. I am not the only one with an opinion about it. I don't really understand the defense of him. I have explained pretty much everything. It's all I have time for.
Thank you for being brave and speaking out.
Thank you for being courageous, Kathleen. I love what you wrote here!!!
Thank you!
I caught it before you scrapped it. Very sharp, and clear, and necessary. The actual facts and intelligent nuance are so lacking from cultural discourse. Good shit. Thank you. Keep it up.
I read it and I admit I was surprised by your stance. I disagreed with it — pretty strongly too.
But you of course have a right to your opinion.
These views about free speech and expression elicit strong responses across the spectrum. We can vigorously debate them and remain civil at the same time.
I honestly don’t want any one person or group curating for me what they think is appropriate and just and right. Sadly, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
Publishing also is a business, and publishers will produce books they think will sell — even putrid ones.
So the readers are the customers. They make the decisions. If these putrid books don’t sell, publishers will cease producing them. If they do sell, publishers will produce more.
I don’t believe in squelching ideas in print. Even the ugliest ones.
I will decide with my mind and my wallet.
I value your opinion. It’s food for thought. We need to have these discussions.
Thank you for being respectful. I understand why some people might disagree. Books are almost always curated anyway because agents and editors are their gatekeepers, and what interests them is totally subjective. I have worked on Woody Allen's memoir (which Hachette canceled, and I thought they were wrong about that), Alan Dershowitz's books, RFK's book on Fauci, Paul Manafort's book, and more. I felt the worst about the Fauci book because I strongly disagreed with RFK's stance. I am not suggesting censorship--that rarely happens in publishing (if ever). I suggest that publishers take more care when choosing projects from divisive figures. I have seen how those books affect staff, which is why I wrote this. People often forget that publishing staff do not have a choice in what to work on, and some of the authors' ideology directly hurts them or the people they love. That, to me, is a good reason to take a step back and ask if you *really* need to publish certain books. The caveat here is that when a book gets canceled by one publisher, it is almost always picked up by another. I say, let the publishers who specialize in those books & who have staff that support them be the ones to publish them.
I 100% agree that the choice is in the consumer's wallet, but I also care about the publishing community too much NOT to say anything. I hope you can see my point of view.
I have Vance’s book. I read it in its entirety and despite not being on the same side, I did have some empathy for him. I was happy for his success, coming from poverty like that because it’s very unusual and a lot of people are stuck. It also shows how education and opportunity can really change someone. I’m a child of immigrants. Neither of my parents grew up wealthy in post WWII Hong Kong. But guess what? Education helped them. Both sets of grandparents knew that and they found a way to send their children to the best schools they could get them into so they would be able to have better career prospects. Both my mom and my dad came to Canada for graduate school (they met in high school and went to university together) and stayed. My mom worked in IT while my dad was in finance. I grew up in the comfort of suburban Toronto and also have a graduate degree.
I remember a part of the book where Vance tried sparkling water for the first time. I kind LOL’d but also remembered the new experiences my parents had when they arrived for school in the ‘70s and things that were normal to Canadians were new/unknown to them.
Many people liked the book. It was also heavily criticized by Appalachian scholars and others. My point is that the book gave him a platform and emboldened him--he has very extreme views. I don't think he was always like that, or maybe he was, and he is an eloquent liar. The problem I am trying to point out is that book publishing sometimes further platforms people whose ideology is dangerous. I am not suggesting they do anything to Hillbilly Elegy, just that it is now front and center.
I think a lot of people from Appalachia, especially those from his background are resentful of him and view him as sort of a sell-out by going to an elite law school. This happens. Also, his views can be all over the place. He's for the break up of big tech, which is why some of Sillicon Valley is now going for Trump. That's something often associated with the left. At the same time, the social policies are horrible, especially for women.
Well, he had David Saks, Peter Thiel, and Elon Musk in Trump's ear about choosing him, and money talks.
Thank you for being a strong voice of reason in a crazy time. We need all we can get of that.
Thank you.
I have not seen any "hatefull" comments, only comments that disagree with you. There seems to be four or five of us who have understood both of your posts to be in favor of censorship, but only of thoughts and opinions that you disagree with. I detest the fact that one or more neo-nazi groups exist in this country; but I will defend their right to express their opinion under our constitution. That is why we have that freedom-of-speach clause, not just to defend the rights of someone that we agree with; but especially to defend the rights of someone with a minority opinion that we disagree with. Someday we may be the one with the minority opinion.
You haven’t seen them because I’ve deleted them.
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.
When a person throws something in the trash, it's usually a mistake to pick it up. Both pieces suggest censorship, no matter your valiant efforts to couch them as something else.
I read the deleted post and this one. I can see why you changed it and I think this is the nature of Substack. Sometimes we need editing. And while I can see the same line of thought thru both.
You said "Ironically, the same people who cry for freedom of speech also try to stifle the voices of those who call for publishing to be better about who gets a book deal. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with whether or not someone is given a book deal—it is purely a business decision by publishers." You said something similar in your original post: "Book publishing has a responsibility to freedom of speech, but that’s very different from making business decisions to publish books by people with dangerous agendas."
You can't have it both ways: does book publishing have a duty to freedom of speech or not? Right now on this very platform, Jewish writers are sharing their work to build a new book publisher because the existing companies are turning down manuscripts & turning away authors when the person or the content is Jewish or Zionist. Your position is in fact that it's appropriate and somehow serving a greater good for book publishing to turn away manuscripts, judging them and their authors. You are suggesting the policing of books. That the police are the publishers themselves doesn't make it any better. If you want to hear more about what book policing looks like talk with @howardlovy about what's already happening.
I see what you are saying. But I’m still of the opinion that regardless of if publishers do their jobs as you have referred to, and refuse to publish these books, they will still make it to the market. I’m a rebel and if I get told no I find a way to make it happen no matter what.
And I think everyone should. Books that get scrutinized by parents in school libraries have other places they can land. One platform won’t bankrupt the author if they can’t get their books into one place or another; their are countless other avenues to go through.
And the more we try to stop something be it a book like J.D.’s or let’s say Gender Queer by Maia Kobabe, for example, if we take what you are saying but put it on a different foot, the rights foot…. And publishers refuse to publish books like this because they disagree with its content, then what have we done? We can’t say publishers can’t print or shouldn’t print books like J.D.’s but then get mad if they don’t print books Maia’s. We are opening that door to then make it harder to get a book published. It’s already hard enough.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So if you say that a controversial book shouldn’t be published, then it goes for every single controversial book out there. What you think is rhetoric and propaganda and controversy isn’t what I might think is…and my opinions about books won’t be yours. Everyone deserves to be heard. You included. But when we put our thoughts out there into the hemisphere, we have to expect push back. That’s how we grow as a society, so that we don’t become divided like we are now. If we stay in our own echo chambers and don’t allow others their opinions, then we no longer have freedom.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t be published. I’m saying publishers should take more care in publishing, period. I have worked on Woody Allen’s memoir, Alan Dershowitz’s books, RFK’s book about Fauci, and more. I never said NOT to publish them, but I also know firsthand what effect publishing them has on internal staff and others. I am sure you can’t say the same. I don’t come from a place of naivety, I come from a place of experience. Woody’s book was cancelled by its first publisher. There is always someone who will release these books. My message is to be careful. It’s not censorship to decide not to publish something; it’s a business decision. All of the people you can think of who seem controversial ALREADY have platforms. This is the mistake many people make in the free speech argument. You can decide not to publish a book because you feel your company’s values don’t align with the content. That’s absolutely not censorship. If I were suggesting censorship, I’d say it. I did not write anything that suggests it. It’s also my own opinion. You don’t have to agree, but think about it more. There’s rarely, if ever, censorship in book publishing. The first amendment does not guarantee anyone a book deal.
I’m just commenting to say I love your work. It’s real and honest. Keep writing. Plus, I wanted to prove Vance wrong that childless cat ladies aren’t miserable!
Thank you for your post, Kathleen. I admire your clarity, conviction, and point of view. So relevant and helpful.
I so appreciate those with platforms having the willingness to highlight the good and awful going on right now, so thank you.