BEA POST # 4: FINAL WRAP UP
It's over (for us, at least). We skipped out on the last day, having had our fill and then some.
Saturday evening's parties included a stop at the Unbridled Books shindig for Ed Falco, where Edie Falco helped celebrate the release of her Uncle's novel ... a visit to the New York Review of Books party (Our favorite story of the evening: Atlantic editor Benjamin Schwarz telling us that when Steve Wasserman spotted us live blogging in the front row at the LAT Festival of Books, he leaned over to Schwarz and whispered "There's my nemesis" ... ) ... and ended up the evening at the big PGW party at the Hammersmith Ballroom.
It was an incredibly hectic weekend of hooking up with old friends, making new ones and putting faces to names ... and it seemed like everywhere you turned in NYC, there were book people to be found. (We skipped out for a quiet breakfast on the Upper East Side near the apartment we rented, and sitting at the next table was the Publisher of Other Press with one of her authors).
In the end, however, we confess we found it a bit overwhelming and even a bit demoralizing. We think Maud may have been smartest to sit it all out, and we return to L.A. all the more determined to focus a bit more directly on the books (both our own and others'), and not on the business of books. Which is a lunatic way for grown ups to make a living no matter how you slice it up ...
Monday is a travel day for us, so there will be no new posts until later Tuesday. In the meantime, Ed wins the Pulitzer for his in-depth reporting coverage, so stop by there and read all his posts ... it's as good a being there. You'll also find coverage at Sarah's place, at Chekhov's Mistress, at Galleycat, at Buzz, Balls & Hype and at our beloved Moorishgirl. Also, if you were wondering what Michael Cader of Publishers Lunch looks like, here you go ... (He's the bigger one.)
UPDATE: Ron Hogan has weighed in with his comprehensive look at the weekend, and details a number of interesting chats he had, including one with the head of the National Book Awards ...
We leave you with this coverage of our last BEA panel, and we'll see you back from Santa Monica on Tuesday ...
The last panel we attended was the NBCC Embargoed Book reviews panel, not out of any tremendous fascination with the subject but more tantalized by the prospect of heckling our pal David Kipen. (We also got to meet House of Mirth proprietor James Marcus.)
The panel moderator was Art Winslow (formerly of The Nation), and he was joined by the illustrious Mr. Kipen, Elizabeth Taylor of Chicago Tribune and John Freeman, Freelance critic.
What follows is basically on the spot reportage of the event with impressions kept to a minimum. We will note, however that John seemed a bit young and in over his head; and this is the third time we’ve seen Taylor on a panel and we’re mystified as to why she keeps getting invited back. Must be the name. We’re sure she’s an estimable editor but she’s a lousy panelist …
For those unaware, a brief working definition of a Review Embargo was offered: The practice of publishers using legal documents signed by reviewers and bookstores agreeing not to review or display a book prior to an agreed date. Attempt to control the levers of publicity and create a “perfect storm.”
AW: Never signed a form, partly out of practice but more out of principle … Tension arises from the journalistic impulse v. the commercial interest of the publisher seeking to protect their investment.
ET: Felt embargoes were publicity stunts, and so she did some research … Earliest attempt, Strange Justice (Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill book), happened prior to so-called Perfect Storm components (Amazon, Internet, blogs, etc.), sought to inoculate the book from early potshots … Process has become distorted, good intentions have gone awry … Don’t think it’s very good for readers …
DK: Doesn’t care for embargoes, has never read one (can’t remember if he signed one without reading it but suspects not) … finds them vaguely distasteful but has bigger issue with the consistency of embargoes … Wishes they were all embargoed so he’d have clear ideas of when pieces can run without distraction … Leave me alone, let me read the book, let me review the book … And if there are going to be embargoes, the publishers abide by them as well as critics …
JF: Has worked mostly on embargoed novels (as opposed to non-fiction) … thinks it means novels are either not very good and wants to get into bookstore before word gets out … or because it’s very good and they want a high peak of demand … Mentions Saturday as a case of the latter … Says embargoes are deeply threatening especially to a freelancer, will go after your house, your mother’s house, your dog bowl … Talked about how difficult it was to get the Tom Wolfe book and had to work with UK publishers (TEV aside: FSG was probably doing him a favor … )
AW: Discussed Carroll & Graf’s embargo of the Joseph Wilson book, and suggests embargoes create animosity in the press … a perception that embargoes hold for everybody but the NYT … Let’s assume you didn’t sign the document but the book is embargoed – would you run a story beforehand?
LT: Wouldn’t run a review but wouldn’t be unhappy to see a book story broken in the news section of the paper … Believes not signing is a company policy but it’s her personal impulse … Thinks it’s much too risky for her to sign one anyway …
JF: Hasn’t signed them but has looked at them closely … Talked about trouble getting a copy of the new Cunningham … but says he wouldn’t sign one for financial reasons. Doesn’t like to be synchronized and synergized into the publishing grand plan … But feels it’s part of the job to sell books.
AW: Disagrees with that last point.
JF: Thinks it’s part of the cycle that reviewed books sell, creating more books to review.
LT: Thinks people can go to the library.
(A brief roundelay ensued about whether reviewers are meant to help sell books or not.)
AW: Discusses serial rights, when excerpts are promised but are broken as news stories under fair use. Becomes an area of copyright infringement. Discussed the Harper & Row case with the Nation in the 70s, when H&R won a lawsuit. Asks panel if serial rights make embargoes more legitimate.
LT: Feels it creates an artificial bubble around the book. Not good for readers. (TEV: She said this often but never really explained how it’s not good for readers.)
JF: Feels bestseller lists are self-generating, since that’s how people pick up books, looking at the top choices in a bookstore … Is sympathetic to protecting other journalists’ investments.
DK: Is also sympathetic to that … He notes that embargoes effect newspaper editors; they see an embargo and think that makes it hot and/or relevant. Feels they don’t just shape sales but create an impact manipulating the media … He doesn’t think it happens in his own backyard but does see it elsewhere.
LT: If the subject might try to halt publication of a book, that’s a theoretically ok reason for an embargo.
AW: Mentions NEA reading report (Kipen wilts visibly) … Is it possible that any publicity for a book – including embargoes – is good as it raises the profile of books?
JF: Touches on the notion of the same papers reviewing the same books at the same time …
DK: Would be a healthier culture if bookseller could only stock one copy of each book at a time.
LT: Feels our job is to get people talking about books below the radar screen.
AW: Reads from a Slate column in favor of embargoes … “Can protect an author from negative pre-publication press” (specifically personal attacks, a la Stephen Glass) … Thoughts?
JF: Sees a trend in reviewing to leapfrog one another to be the first to run a negative review. Complains about burgeoning attack criticism.
DK: Would like to see more adversarial interviewing these days.
LT: Author interviews are standard, one-source, guy in a hotel room. Feels old-fashioned well reported profile are rare. Now they’re employed as publicity tools.
JF: Points out you need space for that … Can’t do it in 1,000 words … The Guardian allows for 4,000 words …
AW: Says publicists would rather have an interview than a review, anyway – better publicity … criticism can be critical. This has coincided with newspapers going more feature-y … A bad confluence of interests there which work against criticism.
JF: Suggests there’s a consideration of the need for book reviews to book ads from publishers … so they’re stuck in a dance.
AW: Jane Fonda’s book was embargoed … for good reason?
LT: That’s not a book, it’s a product … it’s a one-line news story … If the publisher wants to embargo it, fine, let the lifestyles sections run it.
DK: Thought it was a pretty interesting book, actually – wish it hadn’t been embargoed; was an opportunity to talk about the role of women over the last 40 years … finds it a little less shameless than other embargoes.
AW: Does TV breaking embargoes effect decision at all?
LT: Creates buzz … which makes me even more resistant to reviews.
DK: Feels Oprah announcement of Faulkner could have been broken earlier – so many people involved in prepping the amount of books – but folks held ranks and didn’t, due to the money involved.
JF: Felt that the Richard Clarke book got the model right, talking about a legitimate news story just as the book became available.
DK: Wonders aloud if the NBCC decided as a group to break an embargo, would that defang the power of embargoes? They can’t get us all, he suggests. The group isn’t enthusiastic … and offers to take up collections for the David Kipen Legal Defense Fund.
AW: What would it take for you to feel an embargo is justified?
LT: If someone was planning to sue a publisher to prevent publication, and author was saying something important, would stand behind publisher.
DK: National security. Putting troops in harm’s way.
JF: Agrees with Liz …but thinks it’s not fair for critics to get ahead of publishers … (TEV: Here he sounds rather more like a shill for publishing than a critic … )
AW: Notes embargo is a departure from the usual nature of cooperation between critics and publishers … does it disturb the balance?
LT: Like any relationship, nothing is equal all the time … Constantly in position of calling publishers asking for last minute books, etc … Sometimes we owe them, sometimes they owe us … but would never want to feel she owed them in the main.
DK: Emphatically not a partner with publishers which can be hard with people he likes, when he has to slam a book. Feels publishers understand the critic’s role and besides, how much can they punish you without punishing themselves?
AW: NYT goes to the airport book stores - loosely controlled – and will often have a book out prior to the publication date. (TEV: We didn’t know this. Guess we’ll have to spend a little time at LAX … )
Comments