How about, “If you sell them a soapbox, neither my friends nor I will buy your soapboxes?”
Extortion is a crime, but there’s abundant case law holding that organizing and promoting boycotts is protected speech.
" ‘All-white company’ wrongly accused immigrant author of racism, $13M lawsuit claims"
You may (rightfully) argue that her book deal wasn’t canceled because of her ethnicity or religion, but it clearly wasn’t based on the contents of her book, either. In fact, it’s the kind of prime example for cancel culture in action I wish I’d found earlier in this discussion. So, thanks for making me search!
I wasn’t able to find recent cases of publishers stupid enough to outright cancel authors based on their ethnicity, religion or other protected traits. It’s hard to believe those didn’t happen when laws against that were introduced, though. But I’m too stupid and lazy to find them.
What is the purported reach of those laws, in your opinion?
That’s just good old blackmailing in my book. I totally get why it’s more attractive to go after the messenger instead of actually challenging the messages. But this method loses its sexyness rather quickly once you’re on the receiving end of it.
“… a federal judge said a boycott isn’t protected by the First Amendment.” Arkansas Times' lawsuit over Israel boycott law tossed | The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette - Arkansas' Best News Source
The article mentions several cases in support of both your and my position on that topic. Or, based on my limited understanding: “It depends.”
She’s suing for defamation and breach of contract, not under anti-discrimination laws.
The Department of Justice summary of US anti-discrimination law is here:
There’s a lot there about employee protections, not one word about independent contractors, which is what most writers and entertainers are legally.
True, I’ve already acknowledged that in my post. I actually couldn’t find any recent case of outright racist “publishing denial” at all. Surprisingly. Would’ve been fun to watch how that’s appreciated in court, though.
So, what does that mean? Such cases don’t exist? Don’t they exist because it’s actually allowed to discriminate based on race, religion, and so on?
There’s a lot more there, but you chose to ignore it and focus on employment. E.g. “police misconduct”. If the scope of these protections was so limited, police could technically only commit misconduct towards police employees. Which makes no f*ing sense!
The important part (in this document) regards “public accommodations”. (As in: “… a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors’ offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, amusement parks, private schools, and day care centers.”)
State / local laws often go beyond that (e.g. covering housing) and extend the list of “undiscriminatable” traits by disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on. But let’s keep it simple.
The gist of it all is that you’re either dealing (selling goods or services) with the general public or not. And if you do then you can’t arbitrarily exclude certain people.
Does this mean a publisher has to publish every book, no matter who happens to stumble into his office? Of course not. But if there’s – for example – a constant pattern of books published by “green” authors and books (of the same quality!) rejected from “blue” authors… Could be worth suing.
There’s actually been exactly that pattern for decades. And then when publishers hire “blue” editors in an attempt to fix it, people complain that they are “too woke.”
Again, please identify a single case where an author or entertainer has sued a private entity – successfully or not – in an attempt to demand access to an audience on anti-discrimination grounds. My position is that anti-discrimination laws provide no protection in those circumstances; I invite you to prove me wrong.
How do you know? Your own numbers don’t support this theory:
When nearly 90 % of the population is indeed “white” (for decades), these numbers reflect(ed) the demographic reality in an almost uncannily precise way.
But hey, you know what: Since you seem to know a lot of such cases, why don’t you join my quest to find examples for discrimination in the publishing industry? You’d think at least one or two victims (or organizations on their behalf) went to court over this.
Alright. Here we go:
“Del Arroz, the author of Deus Vult, Flying Sparks, Justified, and more, sued WorldCon back in April 2018 for violating Civil Code Section 51 of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, violation of Civil Code Section 51.5, violation of Civil Code Section 51.7, violation of Civil Code Section 52.1, and defamation.” WorldCon Apologizes And Pays The Piper In Settlement With Jon Del Arroz - Bounding Into Comics
I think they do, but again: I’m no lawyer, so I might very well be wrong.
Still nope. He was banned from attending – as a member of the public – not rejected as a speaker. He sued for defamation and violation of public accommodation laws.
a single case
where an author or entertainer
sued a private entity
successfully or not
in an attempt to demand access to an audience
on anti-discrimination grounds
But you do you.
Uncheck this one. He was suing as a banned member of the public, not as a rejected speaker. My point all along has been that the two groups are legally different.
I’d say for an author and artist a convention of this kind is a great place to get in touch with your (potential) audience. They denied him access to their platform.
Well. I seriously don’t know how to prove whose interpretation is correct. I’d have to find a case (unpublished book because of author’s protected trait, etc.) that went through with even remotely a chance to win. You had to find one that attempted that and failed miserably.
Other than that, we could try to sue each and have a bunch of judges sort it out. If you don’t mind, however, I’d opt for calling it a tie.
Censorship is a form of power. People find power irresistible. Some people see the power they find as they rise in prestige, or status, to be a natural byproduct of organic superiority. It is a perk of rising to the top. As publishing has for centuries been associated with marketplace earnings, a publisher’s view of his or her position is divided between that of making business decisions, along with making aesthetic decisions. Where art has suffered in this process is when a second party has veto power on the work of the artist. Justifying this veto in terms of profitability is strictly an economic pursuit having nothing to do with art. Trying to hide this factor with rationalizations about a work’s quality, has (unfortunately) become a common practice.
Publishers deciding what will wind up in print based on economic decisions are practicing censorship. We overlook this as we’re all supposed to be in agreement that capitalism is some form of ultimate economic organizing method and that its opposite is supposed to be communism which is in fact just another form of capitalism. (Western civilization has not bothered to investigate the possibility of a third option for this organization.) Art, therefore, is seen as an understandable casualty of these supposedly virtuous economic truths. This makes it rather interesting when today the wealthy are trying to convert their cash into works of art. (I digress.)
Altering, or turning down for publication an author’s work by a publisher is that publisher intervening in a way which assumes possession of a certain creative authority. An interesting example is William Faulkner, whose work was turned down essentially as a rule,, resorting to writing a novel the total content of which he knew would be repugnant to publishers. “So there!” However, when trying to explain why these sorts of aesthetic-based decisions are made, the rationale creeps back into the economics of the situation. “I have to make back the money I put into this.” or “I have 5,000 copies of your last book in a warehouse.” If one assumes the logic of capitalism trumps all other logic, then these are seen as definitive comments, all sympathy falling to the publisher.
Digital publication has the potential to overcome this elephant in the room - the publisher needing to make the money with the author’s consideration running dead last. However, another elephant comes in and takes the place of that one; advertising and promotion (A&P). As an experiment I put one of my works on the Amazon site. I didn’t pay for any of the bells and whistles, I just made it available there. Then, I had someone do a search on the Amazon site using the book’s title and author’s name - specifically. The book didn’t come up in the first one-hundred search results. What did come up was work from authors who’d paid Amazon the fees Amazon asked for…in its free digital publication market. You pay them, and the millions on the site know your book is there. You don’t, it may as well not be. And, of course, swarms of people are happy to pipe in, “Well, you got to make money.” But whom? “Well, it’s their site.” So much for the digital miracle of drawing the world closer to itself. And, you know Bezos really needs the dough.
But, that’s not all. Since the advent of the personal computer and word processing software, everybody in the world has an old aunt Sadie whose story needs to be told. Publishers are swamped with manuscripts. They don’t even look at submissions. You submit a manuscript, it goes out with the daily litter unopened. Today, you need an agent. An agent. So NOW you have an AGENT making aesthetic decisions about what merits the attention of publishers and what does not. I’d love to believe agents are talented in the arena of aesthetics, but my experience is they’re talented in the arena of what sold last year, and *will this make good box office?" Yes, I’m willing to bet the farm Joyce and Faulkner would never be published in today’s market. By the way, all modern authors are obsessed with the cover letter. This is how you get an agent to read your manuscript. It’s far more important than the work itself.
This brings me to the NYT. Of course, we all know the NYT has a 'best seller list. This list is notorious for not being a sampling at all reflecting the actual sales, or sales potential of a work, considering there’s a whole lot more world out there than NYC.
I’m an author. I have seven novels under my belt. Professional writers have said my writing intimidates them. One European classes me as one of the top five writers of today. The last thing I’d ever try to do is get published. I avoid exercises in futility. These folks who are published and have the luxury to pretend all of this isn’t going on…as if it’s a vocation running on all eight cylinders, “And, by the way, it’s just not fair to me…” well, more power to you. May I add an LOL? There you go.
If all you’re trying to do is share your work with readers, then put your novels up on your blog or website or Facebook page, and allow people to download and enjoy them for free.
But if you’re goal is to sell your novels –
Then you would be treating your books as products, same as the folks you complain about in your post. You’ll have adopted their capitalist logic, whether or not you realize it or care to admit it. Doing so, you’ll have to play by their capitalist rules.
So connect with your audience by giving your works away. Avoid debasing yourself with an exercise in capitalist futility. Like Faulkner, you’ll be able to say, “So there!”.
Best,
Jim
I’m sorry. I wasn’t asking for advice. I was mentioning a few things. I’m also not complaining that my body of work won’t be thrown into “the market” as if it’s some sort of cathedral of culture. As an artist, I only have to play by my rules.
While I’m here, I’ll mention something else. While working on my second novel in Atlanta, GA, I was in an old pizza joint founded by us subcultural types oh so many decades before. I was using a rare laptop for the time. Someone in the place asked me what I was doing. “Working on a book,” I told him. The patrons overheard and a firestorm (no exaggeration) ensued:
“Why don’t you writers write better books?”
“All we get is this Clancy - Grisham crap and we’re tired of it!”
“I’m sick of Stephen King! Give us something else!”
I honestly thought I would have to flee. They actually thought writers had something to do with what was available for them to buy. They were also in no mood for some explanation about publishers, and corporations and the laws of capitalism and all that other jive BS people repeat like a Dark Ages litany. (Let’s not get into the object of ridicule the success of Harry Potter has become…among its “target” audience.)
Thanks for your suggestions. I must assume they are offered with the best of intentions. May I quote Oscar Wilde?
“The worst poetry is written with the best of intentions.”
S.A.W
When it comes to advice – supply exceeds demand. 
1 Like
I have just started in a Frankenstein reading group. In the course of my endless online rabbithole spirals, I came across the publisher Joseph Johnson (1738-1809). He published many interesting authors of his era, including Joseph Priestley, William Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, Erasmus Darwin, William Cowper and Thomas Malthus. At one point he went to prison for six months for publishing Gilbert Wakefield’s work. (This was back when Unitarianism was radical.) That put a damper on his zeal for disseminating dissenting views.
At least we haven’t reached that point. Yet.