In a message dated 12/30/08 10:45:52 AM, [email protected] writes:
> I admit to being surprised that a commercial publisher would reject a > "possibly best selling book" for any reason at all -- other than, perhaps, > libel. And I'd be shocked if we upgraded "possibly" to "probably". > As a publisher, I rejected many books that I determined we just didn't want to support or be associated with. My rejection often brought heat. For example, I used to give proven, experienced editors a good deal of autonomy in signing up books. One time, an editor offered a contract to a well-known bestselling author for a book that pre-publication reviews subsequently were calling anti-semitic. I then read the manuscript myself and I was repelled. I made the countermanding decision to withdraw the book from publication. A storm of attacks came from revisionist historians who deny the holocaust, saying I'd given in to pressure. None of the attackers called me to ask why I pulled the book: It came after criticism from pre-reviewers, so it must be because of that criticism. The lack of calls was understandable; in our press announcement of the cancellation, I said I'd now read the book myself, and I found the the tone and insinuations too despicable to promulgate. The attackers figured my claim to have made a unilateral judgment was to be expected -- and obviously false. I've often found that would-be pressurers from the left or the right operate on the illogic of post hoc ergo propter hoc. And they will choose the "hoc" that serves their prejudice. In the case of that anti-semitic book, they deemed the pre-pub criticism to be "pressure": post-pressure, ergo propter pressure. Not one of the attackers in their many published condemnations of me mentioned that I'd just read the book myself. Post-reading ergo propter reading? Nah. In all my time in publishing the only event I remember that might legitimately be called "pressure" was a telephone call that no doubt the caller would say was only an attmpt to persuade. We'd signed up a book with some damning allegations about Teddy Kennedy's personal conduct. A prominent figure in publishing called me to say we ought not publish it, it would hurt Kennedy's chances to re reelected as senator, and he was a valuable senator, etc. I published book. Alleged pressure needn't come solely from the right. Here's a point that many have found surprising: Though a number of times I signed up books that I knew the pevailing administration in Washington would not want published, not once was any "pressure" brought to bear on me from Washington. Chris goes on: > > "Doesn't a for-profit publisher have a primary responsibility to the > shareholders and employees ?" > He certainly has a heavy responsibility to those people, but you mustn't feel the only such responsibility is to make money. Shareholders and employees usually don't want to be associated with anti-semitic books, or books containing false insinuations, etc. It's also the case that smart shareholders, if they have a CEO who is making a great deal of money for them, will want to retain him, so they will refrain from trying to get him to publish only books they would approve of. Chris asks: > > "Does "Little, Brown and Company " (who published "Outliers") have an > exceptionally bad reputation ?" > No -- they've always been well-respected. But don't assume (1) that this means they must always be as smart as you'd like, or (2) that either shareholders or independent readers and critics are regularly smart enough themselves to see failures of intelligence in the publishers. Chris ends by asking: > > As a reader -- I admit that I never pay any attention to the name of the > publisher when selecting a non-fiction book for study. Should I ? > Yes, to an extent you should, but readers seldom are. Ask a friend who's now a reading a book to tell you, without looking, if they know who the publisher was. Chances are they have no idea. I first became aware of this decades ago when evryone seemed to be reading UP THE ORGANIZATION by the Avis CEO, Robert Townsend. Not one "layman" that I asked could name the publishing house. This is, strange to say, most true of the biggest sellers. I edited and published THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. I expected no one outside the book industry to be aware that our house did that novel. Many publishers are dedicated to a particular "mission" -- political, religious, pornographic, "Harlequin" ladies romance, science fiction, etc. Just as you can expect much of the "news" on Fox tv to be slanted to the right, there are publishers similarly slanted. In general though, the large publishers in the U. S. will issue books on both the left and right. It's not unusual to see the same publisher release books by opposing candidates in a presidential election. And there are some bottom-feeder small publishers who will publish, say, O.J. Simpson's book after it has been rejected by a large publisher who doesn't want to "support or be associated with it". > > ************** One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. (http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp& icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
