There’s been a bit of a Interweb kerfuffle regarding Anne Stuart’s recent comments about her publishers in an interview on All About Romance. Miss Snark picked up on and gave ole Anne what-for for her lack of discretion and for being an ungrateful tart; Dear Author then picked it up and expanded the topic by lobbing around some more links and opinions.
Franky, much as I enjoy Miss Snark’s writing and respect the hell out of her, because bitch has claws and she’s not afraid to use ‘em, I disagree with her. Anne Stuart’s awesomeness as a person has ratcheted up several notches in my estimation. Why? Because she said something something a lot of people have thought for a long time but were too chickenshit to say out loud.
Harlequin, the same publisher largely responsible for trends like amnesiac virgin brides, secret babies and boardroom mistresses, is accused of caring more about slots and numbers than the quality of the end product. Quel choc! That Anne Stuart, man, she is one wacky-ass bitch who has no idea what she’s talking about. Or if she does know what she was talking about, she shouldn’t say anything, because speaking up would be bad business, and God knows that’s paramount.
Look, if people didn’t speak up when the system is broken, how the hell is change supposed to happen? And speaking as a reader, I do think things aren’t going as well as they could be. An author has finally spoken and and is saying that publishers have fucked up, and are continuing to be, shall we say, less than satisfactory in their treatment of authors—and she’s not doing this in a bugfuck-crazy, going-down-in-flames, trainwrecky way like, ohhh, say, Dara Joy, but in a reasonable and honest (if snarky) tone. I say she deserves props, and I’m damn glad that she seems even more awesome as a person than she is an author.
Anne, you probably have loads of things better to do with your time than to fill up your particular Internet tube (that is not at all like a dump truck) with Smart Bitches, but on the off-chance you are reading this, I say to you: Good job, and I pretty much agreed with everything you said about your publishers, including your wistfulness about not staying with Avon, because goddamn you produced some fine, fine reading material while you were with them.
Here’s a tangent for you: Avon in the late 80s to mid-90s was unstoppable. During that time, they published the best work of many of my favorite authors, including Laura Kinsale, Loretta Chase, Lisa Kleypas, Anne Stuart, Karen Ranney and Jo Beverley. In fact, I noticed a precipitous drop in quality when Stuart and Beverley1 moved from Avon to Zebra and an equally steep rise in quality when Ranney switched from Zebra to Avon. Coincidence? I really, really don’t think so. Similarly, Loretta Chase, while I’m happy enough to dance on tabletops that she’s writing again, hasn’t quite written anything for Berkley that can compare with the brilliance that was her output for Avon—well, with the sole exception of The Last Hellion, but the less said about that book, the better.
The big exception would be Kinsale, who has remained consistently excellent, but then she’s LAURA FREAKING KINSALE.
However much the editors for the Avon Romantic Treasures and Avon lead titles between 1988 and 1997 were being paid, it probably wasn’t enough.
Notes:
1OK, so Beverley was writing for Kensington/Zebra already with her incredibly convoluted Company of Rogues series, but she started the Malloren series with Avon (My Lady Notorious, by far the best book by her that I’ve read), then moved on to Zebra (Tempting Fortune, which was mediocre at best), and then finished the series with Signet (which books were fun installments to the saga, but not nearly as good as My Lady Notorious). Those of you who disagree with my assessments, please know that I have impeccable taste. It’s so impeccable, it’s Platonic. Just so you know.
tchah, absolutely right on all counts, SandyO!
That very fact that it’s a real risk is why:
1. I admire her. She was willing to express her beliefs even though it might cost her something in terms of readers.
2. I’ll probably never be like her.
Not even if I got the mega-multiple-big-o contracts. Especially then.
Being a relative nobody means that I don’t get lots of hate mail when I say stupid or controversial things.
And the fact that Ms. Stuart is so vocal in her dislike of GW, she has the potential of making the blue staters love her. But there is still the red states.
Gotta say I’m glad I’m able to separate a person and their art from their politics, else I would have missed Sean Penn’s amazing performance in Mystic River.
And if Krissie’s comments offended anyone, I’d suggest you not visit Christopher Moore’s forum. 🙂
Once again I think the bitches rock! Your discussion sucked me in like a boston cream donut and a Anne Stuart historical…
I really am a Anne Stuart fan. I have read many of her historicals and I think she freaking rocks.
As a single parent of bi-racial children, hatred in any form is scary.
However, there are reasons why politics get heated and get people upset and why so many places, events, sites ban politics of any form – because of how upset and angry people get. We do not all agree. We never will. Isn’t it friggin beautiful!
I hope to hell that Anne Stuart and ammie (you just go ahead) and SandyO, and kate r and Candy (who I want to be when I grow up)can always say whatever it is thats on their minds, always and forever and ever amen!
And furthermore (takes a breath), if you feel you disagree with what is being said – don’t buy her books, or the freaking CD (Hi Dixie Chicks! I still love you!)thats your perogative and good for you too! But, don’t tell them what they can say and can’t say and on a friggin blog for holy sakes…an opinion is just that. Hers or theirs or mine and toooo bad if you don’t like it. So there. I’ll shut up now. But, I don’t wanna grow up cause I’m a toys r us kid!!!
I should have just written “Ditto” since I’ll be posted right next to what Vicki said. Nicely put. Don’t buy her books if you don’t agree.
Really, though, it’s sad. What does her politics have to do with her books? And why should she (the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn or whoever) not voice her opinions because she’s someone who has the spotlight. She has as much right to her opinions as anyone else does—not less.
I *so* heart Sister Krissie.
Kim
My final post on this topic.
I have x amount of money monthly to buy books with. Unfortunately, my list of books I want to purchase usually is much more than x.
I have to use reasons, whether they make sense or not, to weed the pile of books to an affordable level. If one of the authors says something in a manner that “insults” me or my beliefs. Well, that works as to knock her off the list.
Is it fair? Who cares? It’s how people work. If you don’t believe me, read how agents and editors cull the slush pile; how employers weed out the job applicants. It’s a fact of life.
Now, I am so glad that so many of you worship Anne Stuart and her brave proclamations. But I have to wonder if you would be so quick to defend if she said she backed Mel Gibson or her favorite author was Anne Coulter?
That in my estimation includes not talking about your former employers. Not because they are wonderful and always right. No, because if you are trashing your former employers, your current or future employer might start looking at how you view them.
A publisher is not an employer. Please, please get that straight. Categorically speaking, they do not pay benefits, extend vacation, or care about anything except that Stuart produces work that they can sell. It is a professional relationship governed by a legal contract that is predicated on selling a piece of merchandise. In that sense, Stuart employs the publisher to market her work.
This whole “teacher gonna give her a demerit” routine is just nuts. I guarantee that as long as her work sells, hurt feelings and any sense that her conduct is unprofessional will be ignored.
It’s worth noting that she dissed the publisher as an entity, not specific people at the publisher. It could be common knowledge between her and her editors that the budget isn’t written to push her work, and the editors might feel exactly the same way about the bean-counters and the budget.
Trust me. I work for a publisher. Anybody there who gets their knickers in a bunch and decides not to back an author who sells because of some interview remark will be in a lot more hot water about the bunched knickers and resulting lost sales than the author will be over the interview.
And if you’re a conservative and you don’t understand that, please stay home on election day, because you seriously don’t know what you’re voting for.
SandyO (again)
Heck yeah, I frequently buy books by people who aren’t afraid of trouble and who I think are political doofs—because they disagree with me (and I am, of course, right. Or rather, I should say, correct)
I look for ferfelabat’s books and I look for Brenda Coulter’s books and I love Jen (Lancaster)‘s writing—and I think that poor misguided fish still likes and supports Bush, though I suppose I ought to check her blog before casting aspersions like that.
Have they ever expressed a political opinion I agree with? I doubt it—except probably when it comes to freedom of speech issues. But they usually argue their points with passion and style. And when they get pissy and stamp their feet, I need to remind myself of all the times I’ve gotten pissy and stamped my feet and called people beyotches. Usually it’s because I care way too much about an issue.
And SandyO, if you get published (are you yet?), I’ll be first in line to get your book.
If one of the authors says something in a manner that “insults†me or my beliefs. Well, that works as to knock her off the list.
I’m with Candy and the others on not understanding how the statement that she hates GW has anything to do with you. Anymore than her saying she thought he was the bees knees would have anything to do with you, or with me, or with her books.
George Clooney is a raging lib. Does that make him a crappy actor or a one jot less hot? Nope. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a conservative waffle king. Does that mean I won’t watch The Terminator? Hell no. Their politics have nothing to do with their films.
This is entirely different from say The Daily Show or The O’Riley Factor. In those cases the politics are inseparable from the entertainment.
I don’t care what authors have to say outside of their novels, although I tend to agree with Nora. I probably would’ve said something to my agent and let her handle it, but then I’ve got “If you can’t say something nice…” manners my mama installed with a stick. Snark went a bit hard on her, I think, maybe because she’s a Name and ought to know better. Or maybe it’s a slow kerfluffle week.
I’m with Kate R., in that I don’t factor in a writer’s political orientation in my buying choices, any more than I care about a writer’s sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, or any other personal detail about them. I care about the story and how well it’s told.
The only exception so far has been Orson Scott Card. He’s a homophobic asshat, and really, I don’t need to be giving homophobic asshats any more money than I can help. And it’s not as if he’d miss my money, anyway. Mind you, I’ll still read his books (I read and enjoyed Ender’s Game quite a bit, though I’m not OMGSQUEE fangirly over it); I’m just not going to pay for them new.
A publisher is not an employer. Please, please get that straight. Categorically speaking, they do not pay benefits, extend vacation, or care about anything except that Stuart produces work that they can sell. It is a professional relationship governed by a legal contract that is predicated on selling a piece of merchandise. In that sense, Stuart employs the publisher to market her work.
OMG—THANK YOU! I have been so frustrated by the use of that analogy, and was absolutely baffled that Miss Snark used it, as well. As an agent, shouldn’t she know better than almost anyone that a publisher is not an author’s employer?
My feeling is that books are being treated more and more like fungible commodities, but I’m unsure how much of that is me being a cranky old cuss, yearning for a golden age that never was, the way some people talk about the version of American life that existed only on TV shows like Leave it to Beaver as if it were real.
I know what you mean, Candy. Maybe the change hasn’t been so revolutionary, but I really do believe that we are in a stage of strong anti-intellectual sentiment in America right now (there’s always a fair amount of tension in our society between the virtues of formal education and the virtues of common sense “life lessons” and the pendulum swings all the time, IMO). And when that happens, I think there’s a certain dumbing down effect that is an inadvertant by-product of a sort of proud rejection of the “ivory tower elites” (think Clinton the Rhodes Scholar v. W. Bush the Yale C student who proudly proclaimed in a speech at his alma mater that ‘anyone can be president’). I’m not suggesting in any way that there is a willful attempt or desired effect of pushing down quality or intelligence or anything related. But I DO think that there has been a sort of convergence of factors—the increased conglomeration and corporatization of New York publishing + a new generation of decision makers that grew up as the MTV generation and is strongly influenced by the sound byte and the cues of visual media + less time that people spend in leisure activities + a strong anti-intellectual phase that have collaborated at a number of levels to suppress complexity, leisurely writing, richness and texture, high expectations for craftsmanship, strong production values, etc. in publishing. And when the publications are produced on such a mass scale, I think the diminutions are even broader and more pronounced.
As for Romance and politics, if I judged Romance novels by the political affiliations of their authors, I suspect I’d be reading a relatively small pool of books!
I fail to see that an authors politics will have much bearing on their sellability as a commodity. After all, should Stephen King worry about his contract because he wrote a letter for MoveOn.Org? Is his publisher going to drop him because he might have offened the red states? Don’t fucking think so.
But back to what A Stuart said about Mira. On Story Broads, she indicated that Mira screwed up her print run numbers and gave her shoddy placement.
Seems like ligit gripes to me. I checked for her book at the grocery tonight(Already own it), and not only was the #33 NYT bestseller not there, there were NO Mira imprint books there.
Now I realize that the confines of a grocery store book isle don’t lend to a plethora of novels, but there were multiple new releases in romance there by Dell, Warner, Pocket, Signet, LoveSpell, Berkley, Zebra, and Avon. All these imprints had at least two tittles on the shelves there, except for Love Spell which had only one.
Since groceries are probably the best target for impulse book buyers, wouldn’t you want your publisher to have at least a slice of that pie?
To follow up on Nora’s earlier comment: over 20 years, she can speak for me! I and Harlequin’s new business team pictured in my post have been fans of Anne Stuart’s stories with all their darkness for many years. Wish I could say something bitchy, but that’s the story.
While I don’t need to comment on the should she/shouldn’t she (already well analyzed) I did want to respond on publishing. Appreciate that I need to acknowledge the venal and self-serving nature of all actions, so let me say: It’s true. Publishing is a business. Of the many reasons people are in it, one of the most important for many is to make money.
It’s not the only reason. There is not enough money and way, way too much work. Most of us could make more money doing other things, but it wouldn’t be as much fun. So there is a like-what-I do component. That is not just true for editorial, but for the sales force, art department, publicity, marketing, etc. (both the potential to make more money elsewhere and the like what they do bits).
And for those that are pining for the “good old days” when publishers didn’t have to worry about the bottom line, remember that the only reason that was true was because the publisher’s daddy was a Robber Baron who had amassed massive wealth exploiting the poor and underprivileged to bestow it on his over-educated ne’er-do-well son so he could publish manly tomes. The role of women: secretarial.
Watch out for what you wish for. It can come with unpleasant baggage.
🙂 I haven’t posted forever, but I thought I’d chime in on this one. Good for Anne Stuart! I’m not in love with her politics, but she’s funny and honest and you’ve got love that(okay, not everyone has to love that ;-P ).
I couldn’t agree with you more Ammie. We are not owned by our employeers and what we say and do on our free time, by god, is our own damn business. :coolsmirk: I’m thinking about that 20/20 peice on that company that gave their employees an ultimatum to stop smoking or be fired. Why people didn’t go ape shit over a corporation dictating whether you could smoke in your damn house is beyond me, but I still don’t get why people think it’s okay for the government to play mommy & daddy and decide, for our own good mind you, that we all need to wear seat belts. Give government/corporations an inch and they will take a mile.
Hi Sandy! 🙂 I am like you that if I don’t like someone I don’t buy their product. That’s our perogative as consumers. You don’t like Anne Stuart and that’s cool. I really, really dislike the Dixie Chicks and their endless whining so I don’t buy their cds. I also don’t like authors/entertainers that have to interject their politics into whatever book/movie I’m trying to enjoy. And, even though I didn’t have a problem with Anne’s comments, I do agree with the notion that we would all be better off if we stopped demonizing those we disagree with.
I voted for some Democrats this past election, which I never do (usually my candidates are write ins), because I think Bush really does need to be reigned in, but I couldn’t get happy about their victory Tuesday.
I’m a little jaded, but I have to laugh at this notion that either of the big parties gives a shit about the average person. There is a very finite group of people’s interests that are being served and it sure as hell isn’t Jane Q Public. Conservative Christians are no more judgemental pricks than card carrying liberals are immoral snobs and no one should buy into this crap that their party is the moral choice.
And for those that are pining for the “good old days†when publishers didn’t have to worry about the bottom line, remember that the only reason that was true was because the publisher’s daddy was a Robber Baron who had amassed massive wealth exploiting the poor and underprivileged to bestow it on his over-educated ne’er-do-well son so he could publish manly tomes. The role of women: secretarial.
Well……… this is where I guess I compare the gains made by women (especially women of color) in Romance as lacking against those made by women in academic or literary publishing. There may be a certain “critical mass” of women in Romance, but why does that have to amount to a choice between more women or more quality? That, more than anything else, seems incredibly insulting toward and about women.
I have to admit, though, that I’m not a big fan of the “either/or” choice, because it never feels fully authentic and seems to sell both sides short. And I’m not saying that the respect women’s literary fiction and women’s academic scholarship are getting is universal or to be touted as more admirable publishing models. But it does sort of embarrass me that an industry like Romance, which is so dominated by and geared toward women, doesn’t always seem to be so focused on production quality or welcoming innovation or encouraging complex storytelling or embracing diversity within the genre and among authors (i.e. the persistent segregation of AA Romance).
Good for Anne Stuart. If she sees problems with the publishing industry, she should speak up about it. Change doesn’t happen by keeping quiet.
All this hoopala reminds me of shit currently going on in the recording industry. Tori Amos is not shy about the fact she thinks most record execs are nothing more than spinless wannabes who think they have power when they don’t. When she finally got out of the clutches of Atlantic Records (who would not promote her work and whose aim was to bury her into obscurity through 1997-2001), she became quite vocal about her distaste for their business politics. She’s also never afraid to voice her opinion, but most Tori Amos fans are quite liberal. We all cheered and hooted when she told the French crowds back in 2001 not to take any of Bush’s crap and not to let the USA push them around. Tori fans (she fondly calls us “Ears with Feet”) are fans for life, so she has nothing to loose with being bluntly honest.