Support NeoGAF

[mugurumakensei]

We have one super reliable witness for this whole thing, the famed author Nick Cole. Surely the Hemingway / Cormac McCarthy of our time wouldn't just make shit up.

Exactly. Who would go on the Internet and just lie?

 

[diffusionx]

The great thing for him is that his books can find an audience online.

I'm not sure why conservatives feel that everyone needs to validate their political views and do business with them. Regnery Publishing exclusively publishes right-wing tripe, I'm not expecting them to publish Obama's autobiography.

 

[MHWilliams]

Now, it's worth noting at without a contract, publishing a book is not solely in the view of an editor in question.

Jeanette Perez, Associate Editor for the HarperCollins and Harper Perennial imprints:

JP: Of course, we all want something that's written well, but the book also has to have a hook that's easy to pitch. Much of my job as an editor is selling the book in-house to our publicity, marketing, and sales teams. If I can present the book to them concisely and give them a hook they can use when they are selling the book to accounts, the book has that much better of a chance in the marketplace.

It also sounds like if his agent believed in the material, he should've fought for it.

JP: I know authors hate the idea of giving an agent a cut of what's often a small advance to begin with, but agents are a necessary part of the process. First, it's their job to know the editors and their interests, so rather than you sending your literary novel to an editor who buys science books because you saw their name somewhere, an agent will know exactly which editor is best suited for your book. Also, when problems arise, as they tend to do, the agent can act as a mediator, telling the author when they are asking for something that's impossible, or fighting for the author when they feel they should. So yes, I think agents definitely earn the commission they make and are good for the author to have on their side.

And HarperCollins as a whole has the right to decide what it wants to publish and yes, that represents a kind of censorship, though as shown in this situation, Cole seems to have no problem getting his novel published, which circumvents one of the major issues of censorship. And the story has led to increased visibility for his work, without having to wait for HC to give him a cut of the profits. It's worth noting that regardless, publishers have a right to decline to publish books for any reason, including content. This is similar to Wal-Mart (or any retailer) deciding it doesn't want to carry certain books on their store shelves.

If I was going to be published e-only by Random House, I would receive just 25% of net ebook receipts. That’s about 17% of the ebook’s cover price as opposed to more like 70% by simply publishing direct with Amazon. I couldn’t understand why I’d want to do that. I mean, yes, I’d have listened if they’d come to me saying, “Harry, I know giving up 75% of those net receipts sounds like a lot, but we’re going to add a whole ton of value to the publication process. We’re going to do a whole heap of things that you can’t do on your own. And here’s a stack of in-house data which shows that we can boost your sales way past the point you could achieve.”

They didn’t say that. They didn’t actually make any argument at all. When I said no to 25% royalties, that was it. No further conversation.

(That was for the third book is a series, when Random House had already published the first two books.)

If Cole's assertion is correct, it'll probably end up like this similar situation involving HarperCollins. Note, this person had email correspondence to prove their claims.

Author Dawn Bennett has been told by HarperCollins Christian Publishing that she will have to condemn her daughter’s sexual orientation before her book can be published, reports Human Rights Campaign.

In an email from the publisher’s content evaluation department – managed by HarperCollins subsidiary Thomas Nelson publishing group, which considers homosexuality to be sinful behavior – Bennett was told any mention of “homosexual behavior” would have to be “presented as a sin”.

HarperCollins' response:

As soon as we learned of Ms. Bennett's petition we looked into the situation and determined that there was a third-party subjective application and misinterpretation of the editorial guidelines. It was not an accurate reflection on the editorial standards of Thomas Nelson, or any other publishing group within HarperCollins. We issued an apology to Ms. Bennett immediately, refunded her money and offered for her to continue the publishing process with WestBow. We are taking the appropriate steps to ensure that this does not happen again. We are sincerely sorry to her and her family for any harm, pain, or embarrassment that this may have caused.

That response happened in two days. Assuming Cole's situation is similar, he could expect a statement sometime soon.

 

[benjipwns]

Exactly. Who would go on the Internet and just lie?

There's checks and balances to prevent that.

 

[cubicle47b]

I'd be extremely pissed off if that happened to me.

 

[boiled goose]

Censorship can be done by private groups, its just not illegal unless its the government doing it.



If they have a contract and he didn't do anything to violate it, then yes they are and he likely has grounds to sue.

Nope. If you can sue its based on breach of contract it has nothing to do with freedom of speech

Freedom of speech is the government not restricting your freedom to express your views.

 

[adamsappel]

Publishers don't care if your book sucks, or about its politics, they care if your book will sell. Maybe this editor thought an anti-abortion subplot hindered the book's potential audience; maybe the editor is a capricious left-wing radical. Doesn't matter. There is no scandal here. Publishers and editors hate mid-list authors anyway. They know they're not going to make any money on your book. Writing towards publication is a fool's game, and I encourage people to self-publish and market themselves instead.

Censorship can be done by private groups, its just not illegal unless its the government doing it.

If they have a contract and he didn't do anything to violate it, then yes they are and he likely has grounds to sue.

I'm a published author. Unless this guy has a very powerful agent, his book contract would say that the publisher has the right to reject the book outright or even edit it as they see fit. When I turned in my novel I was told it was too long for the cover price they were going to charge for it. It had to be a certain length and if I didn't want to cut it down, they would do it themselves. I had to jettison an entire subplot (probably for the better). And good luck getting anyone to publish you again if you sue them, especially when you inevitably lose.

Doesn't matter because he didn't have a contract anyway.

 

[Stinkles]

Publisher can reject you for any reason. That's not censorship it's business. Editor is often god. That's publishing.

If the dude is a sadpuppies activist or something then maybe there's more to it, but being at the political whims of an editor is completely normal.


Edit. Beaten by adamsappel

 

[Slayven]

Publisher can reject you for any reason. That's not censorship it's business. Editor is often god. That's publishing.

If the dude is a sadpuppies activist or something then maybe there's more to it, but being at the political whims of an editor is completely normal.


Edit. Beaten by adamsappel

Message brought to you by Stinkles Corp where they live by their motto "Time to put on your big boy pants"

 

[yyzjohn]

Are you trying to sell that as some new info here? That only proves they are aware of his selling potential (let me guess, not super high).

Have you people read his work? I read those sample chapters on the site. Ehhhhhhhhhhhh.

No and no. Just pointing out that Harper Collins has previously published his work which I would assume was of the same quality as his current book. I have no reason to not believe his story that they chose not to publish this one due to some content they wanted changed, not due to the fact they thought the book was poor. Until HC comes out with their account, we only have this to go on.

 

[Alucrid]

At least I know when the machines do decide to kill us all it will be for having read this guys book descriptions

 

[Matt]

No and no. Just pointing out that Harper Collins has previously published his work which I would assume was of the same quality as his current book. I have no reason to not believe his story that they chose not to publish this one due to some content they wanted changed, not due to the fact they thought the book was poor. Until HC comes out with their account, we only have this to go on.

There is no reason to assume that.

 

[yyzjohn]

There is no reason to assume that.

That's a fair point, but there's also no reason to dismiss his story as false as some in this thread are doing.

 

[Simon Belmont]

There is no reason to assume that.

Seriously. It's pretty rare for creative people to not get worse over time.

 

[Matt]

That's a fair point, but there's also no reason to dismiss his story as false as some in this thread are doing.

There is absolutely reason to harbor doubts about the one-sided self-serving description of events presented here.

 

[spwolf]

Publishers don't care if your book sucks, or about its politics, they care if your book will sell.

lol... he is #27 best selling author on Amazon sci-fi and 17# on kindle> sci-fi.

Someone did care. And it is wrong.

 

[Matt]

lol... he is #27 best selling author on Amazon sci-fi and 17# on kindle> sci-fi.

Someone did care. And it is wrong.

Those numbers are not amazingly impressive, and not an argument in and of themselvs.

 

[hydrophilic attack]

what is a chorf

 

[Carcetti]

That's a fair point, but there's also no reason to dismiss his story as false as some in this thread are doing.

Well, you could also automatically believe a wild story by someone who posts hyperbolic rants, sells himself as new Hemingway, and has a vested monetary interest in putting out an outrage story about his 'banned' new book just as the said book came out. But I guess people believe everything Glenn Beck and Breitbart say too, so why not.

 

[yyzjohn]

Well, you could also automatically believe a wild story by someone who posts hyperbolic rants, sells himself as new Hemingway, and has a vested monetary interest in putting out an outrage story about his 'banned' new book just as the said book came out. But I guess people believe everything Glenn Beck and Breitbart say too, so why not.

¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[Sushi Nao]

what is a chorf

Apparently (briefest google): Cliquish Holier-than-thou Obnoxious Reactionary Fanatics.

Really a calm, collected and sober assessment of one's ideological opponents. Any who use it will surely follow it with points well worth considering.

 

[MHWilliams]

what is a chorf

An acronym that means: Cliquish, Holier-than-thou, Obnoxious, Reactionary, Fanatics.

Coined by Sad Puppies organizer Brad Torgersen as sort of a literary version of SJW.

 

[DonasaurusRex]

It'll probably be something like 'We dropped this shitty writer like a sack of hot potatoes because, like, have you read his work? It's terrible.'

Seriously, I read the preview chapters that are online. Dire stuff.

what exactly are you trying to establish , why not release the book and let the market decide if they like the book? Whats the point of defending the publisher when there's no precedent that it wont perform like his first book. I mean really how many shit sci fi books get released every year? Censorship is censorship, plenty of shitty books become smash hits no one saw coming *Twilight*. Subjectively i see why you say what you say but objectively true for everyone who would've read the book what foundation are you standing on? What's your justification?

 

[Sushi Nao]

what exactly are you trying to establish , why not release the book and let the market decide if they like the book? Whats the point of defending the publisher when there's no precedent that it wont perform like his first book. I mean really how many shit sci fi books get released every year? Censorship is censorship, plenty of shitty books become smash hits no one saw coming *Twilight*. Subjectively i see why you say what you say but objectively true for everyone who would've read the book what foundation are you standing on? What's your justification?

Wait, the question is 'why doesn't the publisher eat the cost of ink and paper and distribution and marketing because the author is having a pout that his trite screed against sjw's didn't get picked up outside of any contract'?

Just to be clear

 

[Matt]

what exactly are you trying to establish , why not release the book and let the market decide if they like the book? Whats the point of defending the publisher when there's no precedent that it wont perform like his first book. I mean really how many shit sci fi books get released every year? Censorship is censorship, plenty of shitty books become smash hits no one saw coming *Twilight*. Subjectively i see why you say what you say but objectively true for everyone who would've read the book what foundation are you standing on? What's your justification?

Publishers can't publish every book that gets pitched to them, they make choices about where to put their resources.

 

[Earthstrike]

what exactly are you trying to establish , why not release the book and let the market decide if they like the book? Whats the point of defending the publisher when there's no precedent that it wont perform like his first book. I mean really how many shit sci fi books get released every year? Censorship is censorship, plenty of shitty books become smash hits no one saw coming *Twilight*. Subjectively i see why you say what you say but objectively true for everyone who would've read the book what foundation are you standing on? What's your justification?

The VAST VAST VAST majority of books lose money, just fyi.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The author identifies "sci-fi publishers" as the target of his ire but the described book seems closer to YAL. I certainly buy that conservative (here meaning stodgy, not politically right) YAL publishers would not want the controversy of a plot driven by a theme about abortion irrespective of politics. If the story is recast about a guy trying to break out from the YAL mold into adult sci-do, I think reactions would be quite different in all regards. Can someone who knows the author's oeuvre better comment on where he fits?

 

[Plasticine]

lol... he is #27 best selling author on Amazon sci-fi and 17# on kindle> sci-fi.

Someone did care. And it is wrong.

The Amazon sales chart is only a snap shot of a moment in time. Depending on your genre, you only need to sell a few books to hit the top 10. His book is a new release, so he's also enjoying the Kindle Unlimited Select window. New releases enjoy a bunch of borrows from fans of the genre, which count towards the sales numbers. He only gets paid for these based on the number of pages read.