Careless People has not been canceled by the publisher. Meta got a ruling that disallows the author to continue to promote the book, and now the author & Meta will go into private arbitration. The publisher is not part of the legal proceedings.
Great article, Kathleen. Add this to your article regarding "Careless People" (book about Facebook). More people (like me) will now hear and read about this book and author than ever before, and it will likely be picked up by another publisher (likely a smaller press.)
Censorship in publishing is so interesting. Most in the business are 1st amendment advocates - until it comes to $$$. As another commenter wrote, we'll never see another "To Kill a Mockingbird," which I'll add "Huck Finn" or "Tom Sawyer" either. Now these books were written in a different time, but they are important pieces of literature (and have you read the Bible recently? Would definitely not be published today!)
It's interesting - and I'm REALLY trying not to be political - to see how the tide has changed on who is cancelling books today. In the past, it was those considered to be on the Conservative/Right side... today it's more of the Liberal/Left side (ok, I got political, sorry, but I tried.)
What people need to remember is that publishing is a business - as you noted, a book may get dropped by one publisher, but then picked up by another. It's the nature of this business. My concluding thought is: let authors and publishers publish what they want. Let movie companies and streaming companies make whatever movies they want. If you don't like what you see... don't buy it, or put it down, or turn it off. (And whatever you do, be kind to the publicist!)
I understand why a publisher might cancel a book; it's their right to do so. What concerns me are timid agents who pressure the writer to self-censor. For instance, I had a manuscript critique at a conference where the agent struck out every reference to a character's appearance, including "Eurasian," and struck "gangsta" from "gangsta rap" and made other changes that watered down the manuscript sample. She told me, "You can only describe a character if that character is looking into a mirror and describing themselves." When I said this sounded like self-censorship, she replied, "I do it for the publishers." As a writer, I would want to please my agent and potential publisher, but such an approach encourages being bland and cautious. I'm more than willing to listen to an agent's suggestions, and deeply appreciate their editorial input, but such faintheartedness stifles creativity. I hope this timidity is rare.
I had an experience in cancelling in publishing. My novel 31 Bond Street was published by Harper in 2009 with a 1m advance. Right after, Harper acquired Sarah Palin's biography for reported 7m. The Palin book eclipsed mine, so that my marketing budget was pulled. (to none). I was told by my agent that Palin's book would 'save' the company during the recession. I purchased some small internet ads to circulate, one was on a left leaning news website. One issue had a Palin satire, (my book cover ad appeared elsewhere on the site). Some 'anonymous' Tea partier called Harper (her publisher) enraged that my Harper book appeared in this venue, threatening all sorts of things . I only heard about this from my agent who called me, irate, and demanded that I had the ad taken down. Needless to say, this experience left a negative taste for the Murdoch owned Harper and my agent, who bowed to them and did not support the author.
I think Palin's book sold 1m or so copies (did pretty well). The exact advance may be less than 7m that I've seen cited, but most likely at least 4m. She had an 11 city tour, (and private plane, not sure who footed that). Palin did publish a following book. Later my editor bought Cuomo's bio for a High celeb advance that seriously tanked.
Guys, I'm old school and Southern. I'm sure most of you can't imagine what this is like in today's modern publishing world. I see where Kathleen mentioned that people prefer not to discuss the issue because it 'gets contentious.' I was asked to remove a paragraph in my novel because it conjured thoughts of Nazism. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever read and said so. There are zero references to Nazis in my book but it is set in a small Southern town in the mid-sixties. (Insert today's 'editor' here.) I found myself asking what on earth has happened, not only to publishing but to the world in general. We will never see another 'To Kill a Mockingbird' at this rate and the destructive power to a writer's creativity flow due to each sentence being weighed for 'offensive language' is potent. The word 'contentious' doesn't even begin to describe how this 'social justice' environment makes me feel. I revere Max Perkins and can't imagine him ever weighing a writer's work in this fashion. (Yes, times have changed, and I'm uncomfortable writing this comment, but I was lying in bed last night thinking about this piece.) One can pretend that censorship isn't taking place with the current publishing attitude in place but I beg to differ. No matter the business reasons, this is censorship, (incredibly subjective at that), pure and simple.
In my experience, it’s gone way too far. A Kirkus review criticized me for making a “racial slur” that I, nor anyone else at my publisher, was aware was a racial slur. With my last couple of MG novels, I’ve had copy editors suggest getting rid of words like “stupid” or “ugly” because they’re insensitive.
It makes it very hard to be creative when you’re constantly second-guessing your work.
It was strongly suggested that I take a mention of listening to a song by John Mayer out of my memoir. it was relevant to the moment and the chapter. The idea that we would “run into problems” because I listened to a singer 15 years before he was canceled was absurd to me. I went along with it because I respected my relationship with my editor, but I do think it’s important for us to ask ourselves when we are going too far.
I honestly spent very little time researching it. I did a quick search, saw there was some buzz, and then felt like I needed to decide if this was a hill I wanted to defend with my editor…. Because she thought there was a problem.
But the fact that you are saying there is very little evidence to even support his being cancelled supports my argument that this can all be taken much too far.
This was an interesting read! As an author myself, I'd like to think if asked, I'd remove potentially offending content - but it definitely relates to the context. If it's a passing comment from a character, then there is no reason to keep the content. If it's relevant to the story and proves a lesson to a character, then I think it's worth keeping. Common sense definitely has a place in writing choices.
Careless People has not been canceled by the publisher. Meta got a ruling that disallows the author to continue to promote the book, and now the author & Meta will go into private arbitration. The publisher is not part of the legal proceedings.
Great article, Kathleen. Add this to your article regarding "Careless People" (book about Facebook). More people (like me) will now hear and read about this book and author than ever before, and it will likely be picked up by another publisher (likely a smaller press.)
Censorship in publishing is so interesting. Most in the business are 1st amendment advocates - until it comes to $$$. As another commenter wrote, we'll never see another "To Kill a Mockingbird," which I'll add "Huck Finn" or "Tom Sawyer" either. Now these books were written in a different time, but they are important pieces of literature (and have you read the Bible recently? Would definitely not be published today!)
It's interesting - and I'm REALLY trying not to be political - to see how the tide has changed on who is cancelling books today. In the past, it was those considered to be on the Conservative/Right side... today it's more of the Liberal/Left side (ok, I got political, sorry, but I tried.)
What people need to remember is that publishing is a business - as you noted, a book may get dropped by one publisher, but then picked up by another. It's the nature of this business. My concluding thought is: let authors and publishers publish what they want. Let movie companies and streaming companies make whatever movies they want. If you don't like what you see... don't buy it, or put it down, or turn it off. (And whatever you do, be kind to the publicist!)
I understand why a publisher might cancel a book; it's their right to do so. What concerns me are timid agents who pressure the writer to self-censor. For instance, I had a manuscript critique at a conference where the agent struck out every reference to a character's appearance, including "Eurasian," and struck "gangsta" from "gangsta rap" and made other changes that watered down the manuscript sample. She told me, "You can only describe a character if that character is looking into a mirror and describing themselves." When I said this sounded like self-censorship, she replied, "I do it for the publishers." As a writer, I would want to please my agent and potential publisher, but such an approach encourages being bland and cautious. I'm more than willing to listen to an agent's suggestions, and deeply appreciate their editorial input, but such faintheartedness stifles creativity. I hope this timidity is rare.
I had an experience in cancelling in publishing. My novel 31 Bond Street was published by Harper in 2009 with a 1m advance. Right after, Harper acquired Sarah Palin's biography for reported 7m. The Palin book eclipsed mine, so that my marketing budget was pulled. (to none). I was told by my agent that Palin's book would 'save' the company during the recession. I purchased some small internet ads to circulate, one was on a left leaning news website. One issue had a Palin satire, (my book cover ad appeared elsewhere on the site). Some 'anonymous' Tea partier called Harper (her publisher) enraged that my Harper book appeared in this venue, threatening all sorts of things . I only heard about this from my agent who called me, irate, and demanded that I had the ad taken down. Needless to say, this experience left a negative taste for the Murdoch owned Harper and my agent, who bowed to them and did not support the author.
Wow. If I recall correctly, Palin's book didn't do as well as they had hoped.
I think Palin's book sold 1m or so copies (did pretty well). The exact advance may be less than 7m that I've seen cited, but most likely at least 4m. She had an 11 city tour, (and private plane, not sure who footed that). Palin did publish a following book. Later my editor bought Cuomo's bio for a High celeb advance that seriously tanked.
Guys, I'm old school and Southern. I'm sure most of you can't imagine what this is like in today's modern publishing world. I see where Kathleen mentioned that people prefer not to discuss the issue because it 'gets contentious.' I was asked to remove a paragraph in my novel because it conjured thoughts of Nazism. I thought it was the most ridiculous thing I'd ever read and said so. There are zero references to Nazis in my book but it is set in a small Southern town in the mid-sixties. (Insert today's 'editor' here.) I found myself asking what on earth has happened, not only to publishing but to the world in general. We will never see another 'To Kill a Mockingbird' at this rate and the destructive power to a writer's creativity flow due to each sentence being weighed for 'offensive language' is potent. The word 'contentious' doesn't even begin to describe how this 'social justice' environment makes me feel. I revere Max Perkins and can't imagine him ever weighing a writer's work in this fashion. (Yes, times have changed, and I'm uncomfortable writing this comment, but I was lying in bed last night thinking about this piece.) One can pretend that censorship isn't taking place with the current publishing attitude in place but I beg to differ. No matter the business reasons, this is censorship, (incredibly subjective at that), pure and simple.
This is why self-publishing is a viable option.
In my experience, it’s gone way too far. A Kirkus review criticized me for making a “racial slur” that I, nor anyone else at my publisher, was aware was a racial slur. With my last couple of MG novels, I’ve had copy editors suggest getting rid of words like “stupid” or “ugly” because they’re insensitive.
It makes it very hard to be creative when you’re constantly second-guessing your work.
I appreciate the question, is mentioning this person or idea really necessary for the book, and how might it be a distraction?
Kathleen Schmidt - always thoughtful and knowledgable.
Great article... and advice.
Thank you.
This is a great topic rarely discussed, where the lines of taste, business and freedom
of expression meet or don’t.
People tend not to want to discuss it because it gets contentious.
You were balanced in view, sensible.
It was strongly suggested that I take a mention of listening to a song by John Mayer out of my memoir. it was relevant to the moment and the chapter. The idea that we would “run into problems” because I listened to a singer 15 years before he was canceled was absurd to me. I went along with it because I respected my relationship with my editor, but I do think it’s important for us to ask ourselves when we are going too far.
When was John Mayer ever canceled?
That’s exactly what I said!🤣 apparently there was some scandal at the height of “me too”(which very few of us knew about obviously).
I honestly spent very little time researching it. I did a quick search, saw there was some buzz, and then felt like I needed to decide if this was a hill I wanted to defend with my editor…. Because she thought there was a problem.
But the fact that you are saying there is very little evidence to even support his being cancelled supports my argument that this can all be taken much too far.
If you read Jessica Simpson's memoir, he is definitely a toxic boyfriend, but I can't recall a scandal.
This was an interesting read! As an author myself, I'd like to think if asked, I'd remove potentially offending content - but it definitely relates to the context. If it's a passing comment from a character, then there is no reason to keep the content. If it's relevant to the story and proves a lesson to a character, then I think it's worth keeping. Common sense definitely has a place in writing choices.
Thank you. This is exactly what I was trying to impart.