 |  |  |  |  |
the
current
Monday
Report
below!
This week's report by Leopold McGinnis, ULA
I HOPE YOU’VE GOT
A GOOD LAWYER!
Why indie artists can’t get a fair shake from the mainstream.
In the Case of The People (represented by the ULA) vs. the
Conglomerate Newspaper Book Reviewers
The Issue at Stake: Why independent authors can’t get a fair
shake from ‘mainstream’ book reviewers.
Arguments of the Prosecution, presented by Leopold McGinnis
of the ULA.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I’m going to talk to you today
about justice. Or the lack of it for independent authors and
zeensters. Now, many of you might suppose that a book reviewer’
s job is to find good books or bad books and review them. And
nobody would blame you for supposing this since it is the
impression given by the papers themselves, by the television
shows and the teachers and the conversations you overhear on
the subway. Yes, this information floats in the ether of generic
public knowledge. Many of you might also imagine that the book
reviewer’s importance in society is their expertise on books, in
fact their only importance. We read them solely because they
point us towards the good and steer us from the bad. Or, at the
very least, give us an idea of what’s out there.
Now some of you who might have a little bit of expertise in the
matter are snickering. Why? Because you know this isn’t true. In
fact, as any indie author can tell you, book reviewers regularly
refuse to review independent books, let alone even acknowledge
your inquiries. But it goes much deeper than that.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I have a couple experiences I’d like to
share with you. I bring to the jury’s attention Exhibit A:
Game Quest.
I am the independent author of this novel, a comedic look about
the hostile takeover of a computer gaming company in the mid
90s. I may be small fry, but so far I’ve managed to sell 60 copies
of my book (in 6 months) with help from other independent
authors, small time reviewers and people adventurous enough to
try it out. My book is sitting on the shelves of several big name
bookstores and has received consistently good reviews. As you
can see, my book is professionally made and looks as good as any
out there. I have convinced several small zines and internet
communities to review it. Yet I have been able to generate no
interest from everyday papers in reviewing my book.
In fact, one newspaper reviewer I was in contact with stated that
he ‘never reviewed any independent book on principle.’ When
pressed further on the matter, he claimed that the reason lay in
that if he reviewed one independent book, he’d have to review
them all. Let’s shy away from the obvious flaws in this logic for a
brief moment, and get to the net effect. Although this reviewer (at
a Canadian paper) would never see it this way, he was confessing
to being a corporate shill. In other words, he’d only review books
that big name publishers put before him. He was, like it or not, a
paid employee of Random House. Sure, he can give Random
House books bad reviews, but in only reviewing corporate books
(which are, let me remind you, all run by a narrow
conglomeration of 8 corporations who also own the papers) he is
doing the exact opposite of what a book reviewer’s job should be,
to hunt around for good books, do the legwork, and review them.
Not only is he the owner of hair club for men, but he is also a
member - hawking the books of the people who pay his bills.
Another book reviewer, this one local to my city, further
reinforced this information, saying that ‘no mainstream
newspaper will review an independent book.’ Why? Since this
information came through a friend who knows the reviewer, I
wasn’t able to get the information. But just let me say this,
refusing to even look at a book merely because of the way it was
published smacks a bit of…prejudice! Book racism, perhaps.
Now, having jumped into this independent authors game myself, I
can see some points for not wanting to review independent work.
There is little point in reviewing a book that isn’t available in
bookstores. I’d argue that with the advent of Amazon on the web,
there is little reason why a book reviewer can’t review an indie
book and point their readers in this direction (or to the author’s
website), instead of reviewing a book that surely every other
book reviewer in the country has reviewed. However, as
mentioned, my book is in several local bookstores and I have yet
to be told that lack of availability is the reason behind not
reviewing indie books. The answer would lay unspoken. But not
for long.
Not long after this it so happened that a book reviewer from the
Dallas Morning News, Jerome Weeks, wrote about literary
journals in Texas. Remarkably, he also mentioned Tom Hendrick’
s zine Musea in the piece. In the underground literary world, in
Texas, particularly, which has next to no bookstores that will
carry independent books, the earth shook. I sent an email to Mr.
Weeks commending him on his article and further asking why, if
he was concerned about the state of literature in America, he
himself (and other book critics) didn’t start reviewing outside of
the box? The only interesting things happening in lit these days
are outside the conglomo circle-jerk. And even if you don’t
believe that, why not at least review ONE indie book and see if it’
s so bad. After all, it’s what people expect book reviewers to do!
I have to give a good round of praise to Mr. Weeks because he
actually responded to my letter and told me why not. In a world
where the mainstream often pretends you don’t exist at all, this
was a breath of fresh air. Mr. Weeks had this to say:
It is the policy of[…] every major daily newspaper I know of,
every national magazine not to review self-published or print-on-
demand books. […]Our legal department has advised strongly
against it.
This is why: If we print a review of a book that has libelous
material in it, we open ourselves to a lawsuit -- we helped spread
the libel. If that book comes from an established publisher, it has
been vetted by their legal department, so such a likelihood is
considerably lessened. Even if a possible libel gets through, their
vetting process is our defense. We can't be expected to vet every
film, every book, every music CD we review. Moreover, if
someone is keen on going to court for damages, who are they
likely to sue -- us or the big media conglomerate in New York?
Now, consider an 'independently published' book. We have no
defense
whatsoever. No one has vetted the work. In all likelihood, no one
has even edited it. And in the case of a libel suit, who will be the
probable target -- the author, who has no money, or us?
It is very commendable for Mr. Weeks to pass this information
on, but the prosecution contends that this excuse won’t cut the
mustard for several reasons:
1)An important question: Should legal departments be in charge
of what constitutes read-worthy culture? No wonder the state of
popular literature is in such a mess! It’s the best of what the
lawyers like!
2)Statement: Print-on-demand is a book-printing process and has
nothing to do with the quality of the book itself. A lot of
university and small presses (who could be considered
‘legitimate’, unlike myself) use this method. It produces the same
quality (often higher) than a paperback, but makes small runs
more affordable. This argument is akin to saying we don’t review
books with red covers.
3)Considering the recent controversy surrounding James Frey,
Nasdijj and others about ‘truth’ in literature, the conglomo
presses are FAR from covering their asses. Considering the
plagiarism cases cropping up against books like How Opal
Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild, and Got A Life, the conglo-8 are far
from keeping legal issues outside of their books.
4)Libel, the most contentious (and ridiculous) argument for the
abject refusal to look at independent work. Newspapers take
quotes, stories and press releases from the general public all the
time. These are more likely to be libellous than an independent’s
work of fiction! Newspapers and magazines do things such as fact
checking. When they print a mistake they print a retraction
several days later in the back of the paper where no one will see
it. Reporters take Press Releases from organizations and print
them verbatim, ad nauseam as news. It’s hard to understand how
one independent book, if by some stroke of miracle it gets
reviewed and people read it, could cause this type of trouble. I’m
no lawyer (though my mom is), but I find it difficult to imagine
that there’d be much of a case here. I also know that libel suits
are notoriously hard to win, particularly in the case of fiction.
Book reviewers are, after all, allowed to use their discretion.
Saying book reviewers can’t be expected to ‘vet’ every indie
book, cd, etc. that comes across their desk is ridiculous. They
only have to ‘vet’ the one they review. Reporters (supposedly) go
out, do research, find facts and report the truth. What they’re
saying is that they can’t be expected to do their jobs.
5)‘In all likelihood no one has even edited [the independent
book].’ Spoken like a true reviewer who has never read an
independent book! Mr. Weeks isn’t alone in this belief, and it
could have come out of the mouth of any book reviewer across
the country. So now we get down to the truth beneath the matter.
Independent books aren’t taken seriously. They’re not legitimate
or worthy of reading. The are amateur vanity-presses, stories by
little old grannies who don’t know the first thing about writing a
good story, let alone what an editor is. Hey, they just had this
money sitting around and suddenly managed to turn a self-
indulgent, lazy Sunday fart into a professionally designed book
and distribute it to bookstores and get favourable reviews in
several independent publications. It takes no skill, dedication,
vision or work at all! As everyone will tell you, doing something a
different way from everyone else takes no skill at all!
The explanation generously provided to me by Mr. Weeks,
though greatly valued and insightful into what the conglomerate
empire is thinking, falls flat. Like a cheap dime mystery novel,
the mystery is great but you cry foul when you discover the
butler did it. The arguments provided by the defence are just a
ruse for continuing with the status quo. Conglomerate books are
legitimate because they can hire lawyers. And your book is not
going to get reviewed because it doesn’t have a lawyer, a
significant bankroll and isn’t already ensconced in the
conglomerate tower. And the prosecution wagers that even if you
took your book to a lawyer, had several notary publics stamp it,
it would still not be game for review. Why? We don’t know, but I’
m sure they’d think of something. Cooties? Improper bar code
placement? Who knows?
In fact, isn’t this sort of practice, when one brand uses its market
domination to crush competition considered unfair market
practice? In radio, isn’t this called Payola?
Thus, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the prosecution makes its
case that the defendant, the conglomerate newspapers, have no
case, have yet to prove that their refusal to review independent
books is just OR logical. We’ve presented the facts as we know
them and ask you to make your own judgement. The prosecution
rests its case.
Now let the jury hear the defendant’s arguments…
…
silence…
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leopold McGinnis is the author of Game Quest.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GO HERE TO ENTER THE MONDAY REPORT BOX.
