Sticking it to the Ban

In case you were unaware, liebe Autoren, this Saturday, September 25th through Sunday, October 3rd is Banned Books Week! I heartily recommend you select and read a title from this list of frequently challenged books (browsable by author, year, and decade!) sometime this month or next. I also encourage you, if you are Twitter-inclined, to tweet on the subject via use of the #SpeakLoudly hashtag (see below).

This month more than any, gentle readers, reminds us of the importance of our First Amendment rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(Emphasis mine.)

In particular, I'm thinking of the YA novel SPEAK, which I've learned from the author, Laurie Halse Anderson (via Janet Reid and Tahereh Mafi) has been called "pornography" by Wesley Scroggins, an associate professor of management at Missouri State University. (His original op-ed in the Springfield News-Leader can be found here.)

Challenging books with sexual or otherwise "questionable" content is nothing new; Joyce's Ulysses was branded pornography when it was first published serially in the United States in 1918 (a charge that wasn't dismissed until the Supreme Court case United States v. One Book Called Ulysses in 1933). Many profoundly important books—including several major works of Western literature—have been challenged or banned at some point in their histories, and it's due in large part to the First Amendment and individual teachers', librarians', and activists' commitment to free speech and opposition to censorship that these books have been made available to United States citizens, students included.

Scroggins maintains that not only should SPEAK be banned, but modern classics like Slaughter-House Five (which, according to Republic Superintendent Vern Minor, has been removed from all school libraries) should also be unavailable to students (mostly due to use of "the f-word"). For context, the district in question teaches abstinence-only sex education to all students, and Scroggins has also been involved in Reclaiming Missouri for Christ, a seminar whose purpose was "to educate... all citizens... to the role of fundamental, Biblical Christianity in the establishment... of our legal... system" (again, emphasis mine). The full quote is in Laurie's post.

I, like Laurie, fear that parents (and possibly even educators) reading Scroggins' op-ed will believe what Scroggins is saying, and will pressure schools to remove valuable books from their libraries as a result. I therefore propose the following, Concerned Parents of America: before you make a decision to remove a book from a library, read it yourself. If you find you disagree with the content, communicate this to your child. Be aware of what your children are reading, watching on television, or browsing on the Internet. Just because you determine a book is unacceptable for you or your child does not give you the right to deprive other people of the right to read that book. Period.

I urge you, mes auteurs, via Laurie's post, to comment on Scroggins' op-ed, write a letter to Superintendent Vern Minor, write a letter to the News-Leader, or simply tweet this post, Laurie's, Tahereh's, or Janet's, using the #SpeakLoudly hashtag.

The freedom to read what we wish is precious and protected in this country. We don't know what we have until it's taken away.

Movie Day Round Up

Friday round-up time, with a little help from Laura from Combreviations:

Morning, friends and foes. This was the week of Franzen-Oprah speculation. But why is everyone going so bananas? Sure, Franzen's great, but he's no rock star, like Jimmy Page, with his massively expensive biography. Or Jimi Hendrix, with his sci-fi collection. Hell, he's not even giving away government secrets, making the Pentagon buy and destroy every copy of his memoir. At least his publisher didn't accidentally break his embargo themselves, like poor Jimmy Carter, and he still has time to win a lifetime achievement award, à la Tom Wolfe. And maybe one day he'll make the hipster Christian reading list, even if his books aren't written by a real live (dead?) ghost.

Although there have been some downer things this week, like Stephen Fry on bookstores and Phillip Pullman on the present tense, I think we can safely skip it. After all, it's Friday, and so I think we should combat the blues with a sweet series of videos.

Have you seen the '90s Finnish adaptation of Lord of the Rings?



What about the book trailer for Night of the Living Trekkies?



And has anyone told you you're special today? With muppets?



To quote Kermit the Frog, "Yaaaaaaay!" See you all next week, right here.

On A Lighter Note

Yesterday's post generated a lot of reactions and opinions (which I appreciate!), but I feel that one comment above all others requires a post-length response: Dan Krokos' question, "Who do you guys think will be the villain in the new Batman?" (As you might have read, the Batman is my very favorite hero.)

As much as I enjoyed the Michael Keaton Batman films and the mid-90s' super campy Batman Forever and Batman & Robin (1995 and 1997, respectively), I think the new dark, (more) realistic, gritty Batman reboot would benefit from revisiting some of the over-the-top villains from these films. So, mes auteurs, I offer you the following: my choices for the next set of Batman (wo)mantagonists, along with the actors I'd love to see play them.

· Mister Freeze. He's frosty, he's tortured, he's got a mega sweet freeze ray. I think he's got a ton of backstory/developmental potential that weren't fully explored via Arnold Schwarzenegger's relentless ice/snow puns, so I hope they bring him back and give him a fair shake. My pick for the actor: Adrien Brody.

· Poison Ivy. I don't think Uma Thurman did a bad job at all in Batman & Robin, but I'd like to see a new actress take on the role. I'd have to go with Gwyneth Paltrow, whom I loved in Iron Man. Who else could pull off a supervillainess who's also a scientist?

· The Riddler. Jim Carrey played the enigmatic Edward Nigma a little (read: very much) on the crazy/wacky side. I'd like to see a cooler, more controlled Riddler, one more interested in panache and execution than in simply driving Batman up the wall (sort of how Heath played The Joker). My pick is Neil Patrick Harris, hands down.

· Catwoman. I liked Michelle Pfeiffer as Catwoman in Batman Returns; the movie Catwoman (starring Halle Berry, whom I otherwise really like) was so dreadful that it ruined me on the character for years. Who can fix that? Another Aussie, Emilie de Ravin (Claire from lost).

· Two-Face. I'm not going to beat around the bush: Aaron Eckhart did a phenomenal job in the last movie, and yeah, while they sort of closed off Two-Face's potential role in any direct sequels, they didn't make it impossible for him to return. And I really hope he does.

· Clayface. This character hasn't seen a lot of action outside the comic books and animated TV shows, so I'd love to witness his silver screen début. It could just be an extension of my post-lost heartache, but I'd be beyond amped if they could get Terry O'Quinn (a.k.a. John Locke).

And those are my picks! Feel free to post yours in the comments.

Sharing is (S)Caring

Both Janet and Nathan have interesting posts about authors sharing information on the Internet this week. Janet's is a response to my post about dream agents and dream agencies; Nathan's is about Internet fatigue and the effectiveness of social media when it comes to selling books. I'd like to bridge these two topics by asking: where do we draw the line between our real and electronic selves?

Janet has a good point, and Dan Krokos (see Monday's comments) makes a great analogy: mentioning your favorite agent on the Internet is like "saying Tom is your favorite brother, then asking your other brother, Jim, to help you build a deck." At best, you're not doing yourself any favors, and at worst, you might be putting off an agent who would otherwise want to work with you.

So: if I made anyone uncomfortable, I apologize, and certainly feel free to remove your comment if you think that's appropriate.

However! I also believe that these opinions are very much rooted in individual dispositions and personalities, so while it may be best to keep these kinds of discussions off the Internet, you should keep in mind that not every agent (or every author) will respond to these kinds of things in the same way: some agents will care, and others won't. Some are much more involved in their clients' digital lives (and, of course, some authors have much richer digital lives) than others, and so I think that there are at least as many different electronic opinions and personalities as there are real-life opinions and personalities. Sometimes more!

I suppose my questions are, mes auteurs: what do we allow on the Internet, and what don't we? Are our collective attitudes changing as the number of folks who grew up on the Internet increases and the number who didn't decreases? Will the definition of "TMI," especially as pertains to the Internet, change substantially over the next several years? What role will social networking services like Facebook and Twitter—which probably already provide more information about people we thought we knew (or don't know at all) than we could ever want (or need)—play in this transition?

To the comments! Or, you know, not!

The Promotional Quantity

First: 300th post! Thanks again for reading, gentle authors, and here's to another 300! — E

I've blogged about co-op before, mes auteurs, but I haven't really touched on one important aspect of the co-op system: the promotional quantity.

A promotional quantity is the number of copies a store or chain needs to take in order for them to have enough to put the book into co-op placement. This number varies widely depending on the retailer: an independent book store might only need a couple dozen copies in order to put a title front-of-store, whereas a chain will need to buy several thousand. Essentially, you need enough copies to make a sizable display somewhere in the store (or in every store, assuming placement at a national chain) for at least a couple of weeks.

Without quoting numbers or otherwise divulging non-public information, I can tell you that unless your announced initial print run is roughly in the mid- to upper tens of thousands (as you may or may not know, announced first prints are always higher than actual first prints) or higher, it's unlikely that your book will get a large enough buy at a major retailer to ensure national co-op placement. You might get placement at a few independent retailers, but as I've mentioned before, their co-op programs are much less rigid than those found in the national accounts, and (unfortunately) due to their smaller size, their influence is limited.

It would be a mistake, however, to underestimate the grassroots/guerilla/word-of-mouth campaigns that independent book store owners and employees are capable of waging. LibraryThing, Twitter, Facebook, and the blogosphere at large are all arenas in which the indie store can be king: recommendations from knowledgeable, non-corporate industry insiders can go a long way, and I've seen books take hold at the independent store level and work their way up to become national bestsellers. Your book might get skipped at a major chain, get buzzed by a handful of independent booksellers, and end up getting ordered at a promotional quantity by that same chain when the paperback comes out. Opportunities abound, meine Autoren, and you need to be ready to take advantage of them.

So: whether your initial print run is 10,000 or 100,000, befriend your local independent retailers; pimp yourself and your novel on-line, in person, at readings, and at conferences; and don't get discouraged by the myriad setbacks you'll no doubt encounter.

Prithee, Inform Me: Your Dream Agency

Finding an agent is arduous work, mes auteurs, complicated not only by the difficulty of writing something good, editing it to make it phenomenal, and casting it out into the electronic ether like a message in a bottle, but by the je ne sais quoi known as "fit": will any given agent feel like (s)he is the best advocate for your work?

Because of this, it may not be as meaningful a question to ask about dream agencies rather than dream agents. Regardless: what person, persons, or companies are at the top of your wish list?

To the comments!

Round-Up: The Rough, The Rad, & The Ridiculous

Friday round-up day, with Laura from Combreviations:

This week, friends and foes, I would like to start with the things that I found particularly and insanely stupid. Why? Because it's cathartic. Everyone likes to make that "Oh god why" noise in the back of their throat at work at least once for a non-work purpose. I figured I'd just help a little. First, Tony Blair—did you plagiarize from a play about you? That's kind of lame. You could have at least stolen from Wikipedia, which... doesn't count as plagiarism? What? I would say that's Orwellian, but I won't, because that's not what that means. Although maybe no one would notice, because apparently no one knows how to use "Orwellian" correctly. I know, let's get the sequel to The Secret to fix our problems: The Secret 2: For Real, This Is It. And I know this article on the best way to burn a book is in response to a reader question, but seriously, some people do not need help. Hey Florida, it may be time to pull a Governor Christie and just... distance yourself.

Of course, it's not all bad on the Internet this week. A girl read 325 books in 3 months, so hey, reading isn't dead! And this repurposed card catalog made me wish I lived somewhere with, you know, "space." I hear some places have that. For all you fontophiles, check out this database of over 70,000 free fonts, and for the bargain hunters, Groupons for books! Amateur etymologists (like myself, hey guys!) will like these food idioms, and the somewhat lost novice poetry reader should check out these toe-dipping recommendations.

So, okay. It's not all terrible. But it's not all sunshine and roses either, friends. How do we handle swearing in kids' books? Or novels about being fat? Do we condone skimming? Should we all, in fact, just man up? And dear lord, what will Oprah pick?

The world is a complicated place this week, and we've got these big, moral questions to contend with. Luckily, it can all wait until Monday. So let's all brush up on our Klingon to watch us some Shakespeare, get our geek on, cooking style, and study up for our Harry Potter final. See you next week!