cleolinda: (Default)
[personal profile] cleolinda
I know people were getting lost trying to catch up on the previous five entries (Livejournal) (Dreamwidth mirror)--I would suggest you read those in order to get the clearest version of the story. But here's the nutshell version:

Jessica Verday dropped out of the Running Press/Constable Robinson YA anthology Wicked Pretty Things after the editor, acting on her own, asked her to change a "G-rated" m/m romance to m/f. Jessica refused and withdrew her story. The editor, Trisha Telep, made a strange and flippant non-apology on Jessica's blog, which Jessica posted, along with RP's and CR's conciliatory statements on the matter. Running Press in particular stated that they did want the story, yet a representative said that they "[stood] behind" Trisha and wanted to continue working with her.

(I'll admit here that I'm having trouble figuring out whether it's more appropriate to refer to people by their first names or more formally by their last names, as you would when reporting. I have a hard time referring to people formally after I've spoken to them, but if I only call Trisha by her last name, it sounds like I'm setting her apart. So I'm going to try to reach some kind of consistency on that account, even though either option makes me feel kind of weird.)

Constable Robinson claimed that Running Press had no direct association with Trisha. Several writers withdrew their stories from the WPT anthology or other Trisha Telep-edited anthologies, since the writers get flat fees and Trisha would be getting the royalties, in solidarity and due to their own beliefs. Trisha issued a formal apology. Some of the writers accepted this; some did not. Mostly, writers wanted Trisha replaced as editor on the anthology, and/or did not want to work with her again.

Then, Monday, as the whole thing was dying down, Publisher's Weekly gave Running Press's Christopher Navratil editorial space to obliquely compare the controversy to "a falsehood and incomplete story," "intolerance and bullying," "cyberbullying," and the Rutgers suicide. This was printed without additional reporting or the authors' side of the story, and it blamed Jessica for accusations she did not actually make, given that she specifically took Trisha to task as a separate entity from Running Press, to the point where many of the commenters here said Running Press wasn't being held accountable enough. The article also blamed the other authors for "believing her account" rather than make informed decisions (this did not go over well). It also blamed her for not contacting either of the publishers on the subject. A copy of the anthology contract revealed that Telep was the only contact and clearly a representative of the publishers. (An unrelated commenter on the PW article also said that the teen anthologies "were Running's idea and they approached Telep due to her contacts in the industry." As opposed to "no direct association.") Other authors confirmed that they were given no way to get in touch with either publisher to complain if they were asked to "degay a character"--which we then found out Telep had asked at least one other anonymous writer to do. This was baffling, given that Running Press had published anthologies with LGBTQ content, and a different editor had put out a specific call for it, and Christopher Navratil stated in his piece that he is an openly gay man.

The contract also showed that there were no thematic content requirements, and yet Jessica said that Trisha told her "the publishers commissioned me for a collection of het YA romances." (I am not sure if this is Trisha acting on her own again or the publishers actually asking for this, in contrast to their earlier denial.) Saundra Mitchell also revealed that her words were being used out of context in a letter sent to the WPT authors asking them to come back to the anthology. Running Press, [correction:] Constable Robinson, to their credit, then apologized and agreed to send the authors the full statement Saundra had made (in which she said that she did not want to work with Trisha again). However, none of the writers, to my knowledge, agreed to go back. My theory is that Trisha's anthologies do, in fact, make a lot of money, and there's now a clash between "We won't work with her again" and "But this book cannot be canceled."


Picking up ETAs from yesterday that people may not have seen:

1) @francescablock: "f it no more pretty wicked things for me. i'm withdrawing." I don't know why Francesca Lia Block (who initially accepted Trisha Telep's formal apology and decided to stay in) has dropped out. I hope it's because she saw the Publisher's Weekly "article" and not, say, because people harassed her on Twitter and Facebook to withdraw. That's one of the reasons I've never listed the authors who were supposed to be in the anthology, so as not to unintentionally send people after them. (I know at least one more author has dropped out, but is not making a formal statement as such.) There's protesting a company's decision, and there's protesting a personal decision; there's protesting someone's decision in your own space, and there's protesting someone's decision in their space. You have to consider the latter more carefully. 

2)  With thanks to [livejournal.com profile] gwyd: Seanan McGuire's explanation on 3/28 as to why she pulled her story. I don't think I'd seen this before.

3) And, new: Jessica Verday's final statement (barring, as she says, major developments).

For those of you who have been worried about the editor's future, or the publisher's future, I ask you to please stop for a moment and think about the futures of all those other writers who chose to stand beside me in solidarity. (Last I heard, it was a count of ten.)

That's out of thirteen writers/stories--fourteen, if you count a writer who agreed to replace Jessica. I never mentioned her name because I wasn't sure if she knew what was going on and, again, didn't want to start a dogpile.

It has been said that I'm taking income away from other authors, and other books, by doing this. This is an unfortunate side effect that doesn't make anyone here happy. No one. Which is why you NEVER saw ME call for a boycott of Running Press and/or Constable & Robinson.

Which is in direct contradiction to what Christopher Navratil said in his Publisher's Weekly soapbox.

Speaking of which, here's an interesting--maybe "sobering" is a more apt word--comment conversation from the last entry:

Arachne: "In fact, I think that article in Publishers Weekly was mostly meant to blackball Jessica Verday from professional publishing, and to let other writers supporting her know that they might too be blackballed. But I can be cynical these days."

Me: "In the main entry [that this conversation was on], I did not want to officially state that as a theory, but that was at the back of my mind. And that was one of the reasons I did that huge long close-reading of the PW piece to show how verifiably inaccurate it was, because I did not like the implications of people having only Navratil's side of the story. There doesn't even have to be any kind of organized blackballing; no one reading that would want [to] work with the kind of troublemaker he described."

Arachne:
There doesn't even have to be any kind of organized blackballing; no one reading that would want work with the kind of troublemaker he described.

Yup. And that's why I disagree strongly with the commenter who said that this fiasco would end Telep's career.

I think instead it will end Verday's.

The ones who have the power in this situation have traditionally been the publishers. This is why writers band together into organizations like SFWA, or in solidarity like what happened here; one writer speaking out is going to get mauled, and readers will rarely realize or care what happened.

And even so, this article has made it such that even SFWA or the writers who closed ranks can't save her. Both are endangered, in fact, if they speak up too much about it, because more careers could be ruined by this—and unofficially so.

Your post is important, and I'm so afraid that people won't see it. But everybody in professional publishing will see Navratil's.

That's a pretty grim diagnosis of what's happening, but I don't know that it's inaccurate, either.

I do occasionally wonder if continuing to post about this is going to affect my future publishing career. Not that I would stop stating the facts as I discover them--no matter who those facts turn out to favor; that's fair. But you do wonder if you are actively deciding the course of your future every time you hit "post," and what future that will be. I feel like the publishing landscape is in flux right now (which I think also terrifies people). In the past, all of this would have come out much more slowly, and a Publisher's Weekly article in print would not have twenty comments at the bottom saying, "That is a demonstrable falsehood, anyone can see this for themselves at her blog, and you know it." Publishers have had more power than writers, and still do, but writers have more power than they used to. Writers can state their support of each other much more quickly and publicly than they could have twenty years ago, and anyone can put all the links on a single page and say, "Here are ten writers who are standing up for their beliefs, beliefs that may be your beliefs, many of their readers now know it, and no one can hide this fact." If no traditional publisher will touch their work, they can self-publish. It's not an ideal solution, but it's not silence, either. Writers have options they didn't have before, and ways to make readers aware of those options, and aware of why they are choosing them. So I'm not going to worry about it too much, because a publisher can't stop me from helping others speak, and a publisher can't blackball me from Lulu.com, if nothing else. And honestly, this new landscape should make a publisher think twice, too.



Site Meter

Date: 2011-04-06 09:21 pm (UTC)
elf: Quote: She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain (Fond of Books)
From: [personal profile] elf
I've been watching this from a distance, considered trying to gather a Complete And Total Linkspam and decided I didn't really have time or the knowledge to track down enough links. I'm very glad you've put this together.

I wanted to make some reassuring noises at you about some of the comments.

The ones who have the power in this situation have traditionally been the publishers.

Well, yes, they have. For decades, publishers have worked on the Trust-me model, wherein they control all the hardcopy and all the data and all the money, and authors hope to be paid enough to live on.

This is changing. This is changing fast, and drastically, and in so many ways that traditional publishing models are flailing wildly in confusion. Even indie publishers like Running Press are founded on those principles; being more honest with their authors and less greedy doesn't change the core principle of "author hands over the content; publisher figures out how to make money with it, and hands a portion of that money back to the author."

Authors have choices now.

Not every author wants to run her own business and deal with ebook creation and POD account setup and online marketing--but she can. And odds are, if she's online to start with, she knows more about online marketing than her publisher does.

If no traditional publisher will touch their work, they can self-publish. It's not an ideal solution, but it's not silence, either.

It *might* be an ideal solution. One of them might be the next Amanda Hocking. The reputation of self-publishing as being packed with lousy authors is true... but that doesn't mean the excellent ones can't make a terrific living at it. This is an incredible time to be an author. Publishers should be scared. It's not that publishing companies are going to vanish--but they'll definitely need to get streamlined, and sort out *exactly* what they're offering authors. Because they're quickly shifting from "book factories," with line-workers churning out pages, to "business services for authors," who'll take their business elsewhere if they're not happy with the terms.


Edited (close tags *facepalm*) Date: 2011-04-06 09:22 pm (UTC)

Date: 2011-04-07 04:06 am (UTC)
iamshadow: Still from Iron Man of Tony Stark blacksmithing. (Time Lord)
From: [personal profile] iamshadow
I do like where self publishing is going. I don't know anything about the industry myself, and it's absolutely true that there is a lot of crud.... but there also is in a bookshop. And while there is crap, there are also authors like [personal profile] copperbadge. He took the publisher/editor completely out of the process and self-published, but only after letting his whole flist comment, critique and break down the drafts of his books until they were the best they can be. I've got hard copies of both his novels, and they're wonderful.

Date: 2011-04-07 02:48 pm (UTC)
elf: Quote: She is too fond of books, and it has turned her brain (Fond of Books)
From: [personal profile] elf
There's more than a lot of crud; ebooks may become the new spam repository. But even with all that, plenty of self-publishing authors are finding their audiences and making a living from ebooks, and lots more are happily making pizza money and dozens of friends they wouldn't have otherwise met. (That's not what the would-be pros want, but it's great for the ones who just want to get their stories to a wider audience than their personal email lists.)

The authors who understand that publishers provide a valuable service--editing and marketing--and that if they self-publish, they'll have to figure out how to cover those, are often doing as well or better on their own. The ones who think their writing is perfect when it rolls off the keyboard, not so much.

Authors who walk away from publishers for ethical reasons aren't going to be at a disadvantage in the ebook world. They even have an edge on publishers, if they're careful--they can change their book cover, their description blurb, the tags & categories, the price, to try to find the right audience.

Date: 2011-04-07 03:58 am (UTC)
iamshadow: John Barrowman cradling a cup of coffee possessively (Coffee)
From: [personal profile] iamshadow
I'd just like to say (off-topically) how awesome it is that you have a mirror over here. I've had a feed of the LJ over here for ages and ages, probably since I set up my DW, but I must have missed the announcement of a mirror. xox

On-topically, what a fucking mess. I hope the writer at the centre of it hasn't wrecked her career for advocating for her own work, and standing up for her choice of a m/m centred story. It's all a hideous train crash, right now, and it's hard to see what, if any good will come out of it. :(

Date: 2011-04-08 04:17 am (UTC)
jumpuphigh: Pigeon with text "jumpuphigh" (Default)
From: [personal profile] jumpuphigh
Here is Block's explanation for her reason for pulling out: http://twitter.com/#!/francescablock/status/56123920826380288

Date: 2011-04-08 04:32 am (UTC)
jumpuphigh: Pigeon with text "jumpuphigh" (Default)
From: [personal profile] jumpuphigh
Thanks as well. When I saw this (somewhere in my DW clicky-click time), I knew you'd have all the newest information and that I could get caught up on anything that has happened since the PW piece.

Profile

cleolinda: (Default)
cleolinda

April 2018

S M T W T F S
1234567
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Mar. 19th, 2019 04:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios