The Mookse and the Gripes discussion

I just read that 14% of Simon and Schuster employees signed a petition protesting S&S 7 figure book deal with former US Vice President Pence and asking that S&S refuse to publish any book by a former Trump staff member. As much as I loath Trump and recognize that Pence claims his bigotry is God ordained the notion that ideas we disagree with are officially silenced is very unsettling. Some books should not be published-hate speech, books found to be full of lies for instance, but as long as Pence’s or anyone’s books is vetted for factual errors and issued as memoir, in this case, I think it’s safer to let the market silence or endorse all ideas.

I agree, I'd rather let the market work. Censorship's a slippery slope and this is a worrying development.

I think the issue is a bit more complex than what can be resolved by simple censorship discussion. The response of employees to the business practices of the company is actually more of a market response than a censorial one, if one believes that employees have a right to petition management to act on employee wishes. There are probably some employees that feel certain actions practiced by the past administration harmed them and that actions by the party that supported that administration continue to harm them.

S&S stated that they welcome employee’s thoughts, but it didn’t appear as if S&S planned on not publishing Pence. I guess it’s on the employees if they feel they can stay.

The Bookseller as a new article about this. Publishing executives being... well. Even more worrying was that they chose a picture of JK Rowling to go along with it.

"Publishing recruits must be warned they may have to work on books by people they don't agree with as the industry faces “a watershed moment” on free expression, @HachetteUK CEO David Shelley and literary agent Clare Alexander told a Lords committee: https://t.co/jU20MFNIUR (£) https://t.co/CTEZnIUC0o"

Strange how it's always about free expression when it comes to the status quo, so privileged that they can never be legitimately "cancelled".

I find Pence reprehensible and think a seven-figure advance is overkill, but can't say I'm in agreement with "cancelling" him either. That said, I enjoy the protests by employees. It's always good to see pushback, bolshiness or "stakeholder activism," depending on your viewpoint.

As for having to work on books they don't agree with, that is indeed an aspect of life in publishing. It's a capitalist enterprise, with all that comes with.

I think the pulling of the Roth biography is far more pertinent to the discussion of censorship.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...

Aren’t they both? It’s about whose voice is heard and what is going to be printed. Publishers are free to publish or choose not to publish anyone.

Regardless of who is published and who is dropped big corporations decide based on money. Not publishing a controversial state Senator (Josh Harley) was a lot easier than not publishing the VP of the most talked about president in recent history.

Pence is reprehensible but if he's going to finally let rip re: Trump, that would be great. I doubt that's what he's doing, though it is what would sell. He'll be running for the Republican nomination in 2024, I'm sure. In the mean time, I'm enjoying not hearing what Trump has to say. Thank goodness Twitter did not reinstate his account. Five years of headlines about Tweets - maddening.

Ang wrote: "Five years of headlines about Tweets - maddening. "

I agree. I have to say my biggest censorship urge is to ban Twitter.

This topic has been on my mind a lot this week. I really disagree with Norton's decision to stop publication of the Roth biography. Bailey may be a bad guy; indeed he may have engaged in criminal behavior, but that does not mean that the public should be denied his 8 years of work and unfettered access to Roth materials. I might understand better if we were talking about a book ABOUT Bailey, but this is about Roth, no? It's hard not to feel that Norton is just trying to atone for its abysmal failure to look into the allegations against Bailey that were made BEFORE publication of the book. To me, this really feels like censorship.

On the Pence book, I think the reality is that he's a significant political figure and so of course they want to publish his book. I won't buy it, but lots of people will. Note also that S&S refused to publish a book by Jonathan Mattingly, one of the police officers involved in the murder of Breonna Taylor in Kentucky. Feels very subjective to me.

I have no issues with Norton’s decision. The book is exceptionally problematic seen through the lens that the biographer is allegedly a sexual predator. It colors everything. It’s even, I would say, unfair to Roth. I have read it and cannot imagine ever reading it again or ever being able to separate the biographer from how the women in Roth’s life are portrayed.

Cindy wrote: "This topic has been on my mind a lot this week. I really disagree with Norton's decision to stop publication of the Roth biography. Bailey may be a bad guy; indeed he may have engaged in criminal b..."

The decision on the Mattingly only happened after a robust online campaign against it. They were pretty fine with it before. That particular press is all sorts of problematic, to say the least. Somehow or the other, it is almost always S&S making these really horrible book acquisitions. At this point I'm like, "oh not them again!"

I find the Roth/Bailey thing unspeakably icky. I don't know a huge amount about Roth, but his reputation kind of precedes him where women are concerned. And we kind of take it from our famous genius writers, or at least I'm prepared to take a certain amount of dickishness from them. But it's another thing to take it from their biographers, and it can't help to reflect back on the subject (when the subject was how he was).

But then it also seems ridiculous to cancel the book when it's already out. I agree with Cindy that maybe this should have been an issue before publication. And at the same time these are "allegations," not convictions. But we all know what conviction rates are like in that area.

Icky.

Emily wrote: "But then it also seems ridiculous to cancel the book when it's already out. I agree with Cindy that maybe this should have been an issue before publication."
I can't help but wondering if a good part of this hinges on the fact that the publisher was contacted directly about the allegation early on and then made the asinine decision to pass that contact directly on to Bailey. The level of corporate culpability/involvement here seems like a PR nightmare.

I have very muddled thoughts about all of the above but just wanted to say how much I appreciate the discussion here.

I have mixed feelings about all the books we discussed except the Mattingly book, that book was by the officer who wrongly killed a young woman in her own home. He should not profit from that.

Im squarely against canceling publication of the repellant Pence, as long as the book is fact checked. That we don’t like the man or his politics or his religious views, hypocritical though they are, to not publish him would be censorship and that is a dangerous choice.

The public is better served, in my opinion, by letting people tell us who they are and what they think. Let Pence tell the world he supports so-called conversion therapy and his archaic demeaning views on women.

I’m very conflicted about Bailey. I’m not interested in Roth so I think I’m being objective in pointing out that Bailey’s been accused, and although it certainly seems that he’s guilty, he hasn’t been indicted or found guilty, and the book isn’t about Bailey’s relationships with women. The book is about a very famous author. I think perhaps this should be left to the court of public opinion, but I could be persuaded that I’m wrong about this.

I do strongly support the rights of the S&S employees to protest and hope S&S was being genuine when they said they supported their employees right to protest and the signees are not retaliated against.

Honestly, it's not censorship unless he is banned by the state and prevented from airing his views anywhere. I don't think publishers should consider him at all, and everyone had indeed been urging to avoid giving book deals to the Trump admin people. If Pence feels he has important things to say, he can find a RW publisher who aligns with them or self-publish. The deal should not have gone down in the first place, especially after S&S, like other publishers, made so many promises last year. But that is fake optics, this is the bottom line. They are also publishing Conway, a reprehensible woman who leaked her underage daughter's nudes and that is not even the worst thing she has done. I think the issue is that we expect Publishing to be moral or ethical, however we might define those terms, but it is very much a business and only cares about money. Big publishing is ugly, indie publishing for the win always.

Very mixed views on this topic.

Platforms like Twitter and Facebook attract opprobrium for ‘publishing offensive material when they argue they are merely a medium, the equivalent of paper to books. So all the more reason for a publisher who actually commissions, pays advances for and physical publishes and distributes a novel to be held accountable.

And I do often wonder if our desire to completely protect free speech is sustainable in a world of viral fake news and hate speech.

On the other hand with Pence he was the democratically elected Vice President of the country and came close to being elected again (and did ultimately refuse the invitation from Trump to announce he had been elected again). I am no fan, but feels odd to regard as offensively unpublishable the writings of someone supported by around half the population of the country. Maybe I am misreading the situation from this side of the Atlantic but I would certainly massively struggle here if a publisher was pressurised not to publish a book by Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn say even though both have views many find offensive.

Free speech doesn't mean that a business should publish it, right?

I'm with Wendy on the Mattingly - how did they even consider publishing it?

I'm with Trevor on the Bailey - from what I've read, Bailey writes a lot about Roth and women. How can that be untainted?

Pence, Mattingly, Bailey, can say anything they want in the name of free speech but the publisher is weighing up sales figures. It’s not a free speech issue or censorship if they decide later to retracct their contract - if Pence, for example, spews "alternate facts" (publishing Conway? Yuck) throughout his book, the publisher may decide they don't want that can of worms. Pence still has free speech. It is not a human right to be published.

And I'm with Paul on whether free speech can be protected in the fake news society (and I don't mean Trump's definition of fake news.)

This is why we can't have nice things.

WndyJW wrote: "I have mixed feelings about all the books we discussed except the Mattingly book, that book was by the officer who wrongly killed a young woman in her own home. He should not profit from that.

Im..."

Do you suppose the publisher will provide an aspirin for women to squeeze between their knees while reading Pence’s book? Because that’s such an effective form of birth control.🙄

Unfortunately, I think this issue has been around for a long time. I have mixed feelings about the books- I think part of the reason Mattingly was refused is low sales due to the target audience- anyone who thinks he was in the right probably doesn’t read much. But Bailey, regardless of his toxic attitude toward women, did a lot of research and work on Roth’s biography, and has shown in the past that he can write well.

How many books are submitted by people of color or are translations that aren’t even considered for publication?

I agree no publisher is obligated to publish anyone and they are responsible for what they put in the world, but we all know Areeb is right, it’s all about money. They don’t get credit for making the right decision about Mattingly, who would have bought that anyway? Pence will make them a lot of money and Pence would have to do a lot more than be a repulsive, patriarchal, hypocrite for S&S to turn down that kind of money.

I fear a lot of people would have bought the Mattingly, sadly.

I don’t think as many people know his name as know Breonna Taylor’s name.