Banned Book Week Review

Cat's Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut

Is anyone really surprised? I think not.

I think that, to some extent, Cat's Cradle lives in the shadow of Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five. The latter is undeniably a great book—in my opinion, the best anti-war book of the twentieth century—but Cat's Cradle is, to my mind, more incisive, less overtly cynical, and less blunt than its better-known and more widely read brother.

The story is fairly simple (begin spoilers): an everyman narrator named John (or Jonah, as his parents "nearly" called him) is working on a book about the bombing of Japan during World War II. In so doing, he ends up interviewing the children of Dr. Felix Hoenikker, a physicist who helped create the bomb. This results in his discovering a strange blue-white form of ice invented by Hoenikker and hoarded by his children, ice-nine, which turns any water it touches into a variant of normal ice that remains solid at room temperature; an extended visit to the fictional Caribbean island of San Lorenzo and its dictator, "Papa" Monzano; the discovery of its "suppressed" religion, Bokononism, and its eponymous founder; and, by way of ice-nine accidentally falling into the ocean off the coast of San Lorenzo, the end of the world. (end spoilers)

If you've ever read Vonnegut, you know one thing about him: he was simultaneously deeply cynical about the state and future of the human race and deeply hopeful that it would someday overcome its considerable shortcomings. Cat's Cradle illustrates this beautifully, juxtaposing the simplicity and near-Zen quality of Bokononism against the dictatorship of "Papa" Monzano and the backdrop of the horrific destruction wrought by humanity in World War II. At the same time, Bokononism itself (and Bokonon in particular) display the same struggle between cynicism and hope, producing such aphorisms as "The hand that stocks the drug stores rules the world."

Why is this book banned/frequently challenged? Well, there are some Bad Words in it. And one chapter (number 36, "Meow") featuring a message written in human excrement and a dead cat with a sign around its neck sporting the chapter's title. Certainly the relentless and overt probing of religion in general and Christianity in particular don't endear the book to school districts in the Bible Belt, and I imagine there are some school administrators and parents who are afraid exposing their children to Vonnegut's multilayered cynicisms and criticisms will turn them into nihilists or Satanists or something. The fact that they're missing Vonnegut's subtle but unmistakable hurt for the human race makes their desire to censor it all the more ironic.

That said, you won't find a more eloquent or compact criticism of humanity (particularly America) anywhere, especially not one tempered by Vonnegut's earnest love for the world. I'll say he's in a better place now, and not because he's dead or in heaven or anything like that, but simply because I think he'd find that funny. To Vonnegut, nothing was more serious than a joke, and it's when you aren't clear whether Vonnegut/John is kidding that you are, I think, at the very heart of Cat's Cradle.

I'll leave you with this, the last lines of the book and the last attributed to the enigmatic Bokonon:

If I were a younger man, I would write a history of human stupidity; and I would climb to the top of Mount McCabe and lie down on my back with my history for a pillow; and I would take from the ground some of the blue-white poison that makes statues of men; and I would make a statue of myself, lying on my back, grinning horribly, and thumbing my nose at You Know Who.

It doesn't get any better than that.

44% is the New 50%

In case you're not following me on Twitter, mes auteurs (and why wouldn't you be?), the results of the Barnes and Noble shareholder vote are in, with preliminary results indicating 44% supporting Riggio and 39% supporting Burkle. Quel fromage.

Riggio is looking to sell the company to other bidders, with books on the company going out to at least 20 interested parties this week. Burkle, who immediately called for a "transparent auction that delivers the best possible outcome for investors," is rumored to be considering a bid himself. If his is the highest, I'm not sure on what grounds Riggio would refuse (although I expect he will, given the bad blood resulting from the proxy war). For the time being, the incumenbent management and board members will remain.

Although this battle is more or less decided (pending certification of the final results over the next few days), the war is far from over. Shareholders will again vote in mid-November on whether to ratify the "poison pill" plan that prevents any shareholder, save Riggio, from accumulating more than a 20% stake in the company. Should the poison pill be significantly altered (say, in accordance with Burkle's proposal of increasing the trigger to 30%), we could see a whole new round of these shenanigans.

In my opinion, the 44/39 split, though close, might have resulted from a point raised by investor Howard Tannenbaum: "Riggio and his brother built up the company. What does Burkle know about book selling?" I ask you, meine Autoren: does it matter to you whether the head of the largest brick-and-mortar trade book retailer in the country knows anything about selling books?

Prithee, Inform Me: What Would You Change About Publishing?

Today's query is a simple one, mes auteurs: If you could, what major change(s) would you make to the publishing industry? Everything from author advances to return rates is on the table. Go nuts!

A Home for Your Tea Party Memoir

I was born in a red state. I was later raised in a state that, not unlike Lindsay Lohan, has been known to swing both ways (moreso when in a retaliatory mood). Needless to say, I know more than a few people who continually bemoan the state of publishing/print media in general and its relentless "liberal bias." If you're one of those people, you're in luck! HarperCollins has just announced their new conservative imprint, Broadside Books.

As the article notes, the addition of conservative imprints to major publishers is not uncommon, though it is a relatively new phenomenon. Random House has Crown Forum; Simon & Schuster has Threshold Editions; Penguin has Sentinel. Publishers can print Karl Marx and Sarah Palin side-by-side under different imprints, and as the Tea Party furor continues to mount over the next year or two, I expect publishers to begin printing a lot more of the latter.

There's a sizable minority in the publishing industry that says—or at least jokes—that conservative voters don't read, so publishing books that cater to them is a waste of time and money. I'm certain that the continued success of books by politicians/pundits/celebrities like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Sean Hannity, not to mention their perpetual presence on the New York Times bestseller list, fairly refutes this notion; there can't be that many liberals buying these books out of morbid curiosity.

So, with all the usual caveats that: I am not a seer; I am not speaking from any inside or non-public knowledge; I am not providing professional advice; I am not responsible for your lost time or money in the event you decide to go ahead and do this, &c: if you're writing conservative non-fiction, political analysis, or memoir, especially anything Tea Party-oriented, you might have more of a chance at representation and good sales than you think. Just, you know, try to avoid ranting.

My personal politics notwithstanding, I'm encouraged by this quote from Adam Bellow, son of Saul Bellow and head of Broadside Books: "What I intend to do is uphold a standard of intellectual seriousness on the right. [These books] should be written in a way that they are serious, soberly argued, well researched, and make a respectable case—agree or disagree." If your book is well-researched and well-written, I see no reason why you shouldn't give the Liberal Book Publishing Machine a try.

Banned Books & Round Ups

Before the round-up begins, mes auteurs: next Thursday, September 30th, as per Le R's & Tahereh's brain(blog?)child, I'll be blogging about my favorite banned book. If you want to do the same, add your name to Tahereh's post!

And now: today's Friday round-up with Laura from Combreviations.

Today I have split the happenings of the week into three distinct categories: things that make me go "Ugh, for reals?," things that are interesting, and things I love. As a cranky, pre-caffeine, non-morning person, I think we should start with the things that are super annoying and work our way to happiness. Yes? Yes.

I don't know if you heard, friends and foes, but Danielle Steel is not a romance writer. Yep. That's right. Also, Sarah Palin is super persecuted. Shame on you, persecuting world, for being mean to this poor woman, who has done nothing to deserve any judgment. Speaking of women, there are just too many ladies in publishing. And, you know what, the article isn't that bad, but this really cheesed me off: "The main impediment for attracting men, many think, is the low pay of publishing jobs, especially entry-level ones." I'm sorry. That's an impediment for anyone. You want to pay me $25k a year, before taxes, to work in an industry centered in New York, the most expensive city in America? Where I'll spend $1,000 in rent a month to live in Brooklyn with 4 roommates? Sign. Me. Up. And, unfortunately, it is lucky, because breaking into the industry—even entry-level, even if you're a lady—is extremely difficult to do. If you try to be on the writing side, well, you'll suffer the stigma of your trade paperback original, and e-books are probably going to wipe out print anyway. Also, finally, what is up with Texas and textbooks? It's a truly terrible combo deal.

On the things that are interesting side, here's a round-up of fall 2010 literary movies. If you're not so literary, there's also a list of the most scientifically accurate sci-fi novels, or, hey, some smut by John Milton. Important questions include: Is Danica McKellar sending the right message about being smart and sexy? Could we have a female great American novelist? Why do we bother reading things we won't remember? And does it matter if 4-year-olds can understand irony, if they won't grow up to use it correctly? Also interesting is this 2,400 page cookbook, this list of smart YA books, and suggestions for what to read on jury duty.

For the truly awesome, we need look no farther than Tim Burton's poem for Johnny Depp. But, if you must look further, here are nine great word apps, and also news about a new J.J. Abrams show, starring Locke and Ben Linus from lost. Happiness, thy name is television. You can analyze common author poses, or be impressed by the fact that Terry Pratchett forged himself a meteor sword. Where do such good ideas comes from?

That's all for this week—see you next time, right here.

It's Between Chapters 10 and 12

No, this isn't about Borders (at least, not directly; see below). But it is about another brick-and-mortar franchise whose very existence is imperiled by the Internet: Blockbuster.

After suffering a difficult last few years, including ever-shrinking profit margins and the delisting of its stock from the New York Stock Exchange, the (former) video rental giant announced today that it's filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (though they're calling it a "pre-arranged recapitalization").

I think relatively few people are surprised, though I would have given them another year or two before expecting a bankruptcy announcement. Between Netflix's stranglehold on pre-planned video rental and redbox's domination of the impulse rental with their kiosk model, Blockbuster hasn't had anywhere to go for some time.

Speaking of nowhere to go: while Borders hasn't (as far as I know) given any indication that they'll be filing for bankruptcy anytime soon, I do see some similarities between the two companies. Both are apparently strapped for cash; both have been (or have been in danger of being) delisted by the NYSE (Borders' stock has hovered around the minimum average close of $1.00/share for most of 2010); both are competing against impossibly popular, efficient, and fast-growing electronic competitors (Netflix and Amazon, respectively); and both demonstrate, à mon avis, only a half-hearted and ill-informed attempt to enter the digital market (Blockbuster with their on-line rental queue feeding their mail service, Borders with their .com business and partnership with various third-party e-reader manufacturers).

Long story short: I'm not surprised by this turn of events for Blockbuster and while I don't think it necessarily prefigures a similar downturn for Borders, I think the stories are similar enough that both consumers and industry insiders should be paying attention. If Borders' management doesn't right the company quickly, it may be too late to avoid a "pre-arranged recapitalization." Here's hoping it's not too late already.

Personalities and Professionalism

Every once in awhile, mes auteurs, I post about the little dos and don'ts of interacting with agents: what to say and not to say, how to go about saying it, asking appropriate questions without driving your agent up the wall, &c, &c. After having read Bill Clegg's Portrait of the Addict as a Young Man, however, I must ask: what kind of behaviors would you and wouldn't you tolerate from your (hypothetical) agent? How far would you go to preserve your working relationship?

If you haven't read Clegg's memoir, allow me to summarize: for reasons that aren't made entirely clear, Bill Clegg decides to throw away his relationship with his family, flagrantly cheat on his live-in boyfriend, and abandon his career (deserting his pregnant business partner and dozens of clients in the process) so he can blow through $70,000 worth of savings smoking crack. (He relapses or drops out of rehab more than once.) Clegg portrays himself as not very nice and not overwhelmingly intelligent, though he does (pre-crack binge, at least) sound funny and fairly charming. That aside, however, he sounds like someone of whom I wouldn't even want to be a friend of a friend of a friend, much less someone I'd want to work with. (Full disclosure: I have never met Bill Clegg in real life.)

Here's the kicker, though: after he finally cleaned up his act, Clegg—who never actually apologized to the the aforementioned abandoned business partner—didn't seem to suffer at all from having burnt nearly every bridge he had. He not only got a pretty cushy job with William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, but even got many of his former clients back. Clients he had abandoned with no explanation so he could smoke a bunch of crack, drink liver-brittling amounts of room service vodka, and have sex with $400/hour prostitutes.

Granted, this is far and away an outlier in the Realm of Recorded Agent Behaviors, but I think it warrants attention not only because of Clegg's high profile, but because of the relative lack of professional repercussions he seems to have suffered.

This might be an easy one, but prithee, inform me: would you have gone back to an agent like Bill Clegg if you believed (s)he were the best fit for your work and/or would get you the best deal available? What would and wouldn't you tolerate in a relationship with your agent?