Jackie's gonna regret that...

Ah, Jackie Levin. Who hasn't placed constant emails, begging for placement on the Today Show for one of your authors? Yes, I know that you will never do anything with my little debut novelist, but hey, it's nice to try, right? And, really, I'm not offended that you rarely respond to my pitches. You are a busy lady, Ms. Levin, and I know that, one day, when you like one of my ideas, we will be friends. Or, at least when I work on Tina Fey's new book and you beg me for coverage (note: I do not actually work for the company that just paid millions for a non-existent book by Ms. Palin's doppelganger).

But, Jackie, I think you may of made an error in your recent interview with the 26th Story, when you said (in response to: Is it possible for a self-published author to get on the Today show?) this:

Absolutely...I have always said books are another vehicle for us to find great stories/segments, and if one happens to come from someone who published on their own, that's fine with me as long as all the facts in the book check out. If an author has the wherewithal to find me and pitch me, good for them, but at the same time, they have to be able to handle a "no" without having that buffer called "a publicist."

Oh my. See, here's a little secret. All authors would harass book reviewers, producers, etc. by themselves if they could. But we, as publicists, forbid it. Not because we want to do it ourselves. I'm happy to let other people do my work for me. It's simply that we are trying to protect you from the onslaught of inappropriate pitches, harassment from authors who have "nothing" to lose (we have your respect and our chances of ever getting ANY author on the show at risk), etc. We are trying to provide that extra filter for you. And how do we do that? By telling authors that you will ignore them. That you don't want to hear from them. That contacting you directly will HURT their chances, not help them.

But now, you've basically let them know that this is really just a free for all. And, well, I'm afraid that I just can't help you anymore. Godspeed, Ms. Levin, and I pray that your inbox does not implode.

--Ladytron

[This is a couple days behind the curve, but to be fair, Ladytron sent it to me on Monday. I just posted it late. My bad. --Ed.]

Sutherland doesn't like curried books after all

So, yesterday, I started writing this totes amusing post about book critic John Sutherland and how he backed down from his original claim that "If The Enchantress of Florence doesn't win this year's Man Booker I'll curry my proof copy and eat it."

As everyone has heard by now, Rushdie's newest novel was not nominated (according to jury chair Michael Portillo, "In the opinion of [the judges] taken together, Salman Rushdie's was not one of the top six books for us. We didn't have a huge debate about it."), and Sutherland has totally backed down.

But, since I was a little slow to actually finish the post and send it to the Editor to put up, I have realized that NY Mag's Vulture section already wrote it for me. Rather than try to top them, I'll just repost it here for your reading pleasure (I have also stolen their handy art work).

Back in April, reviewing Salman Rushdie's most recent novel in the pages of the Financial Times, book critic John Sutherland — even though he admitted to not understanding its plot — made this bold promise: "If The Enchantress of Florence doesn't win this year's Man Booker I'll curry my proof copy and eat it." Today, however, after the Rushdie-less Booker short list was announced, Sutherland reneged: "I vowed — publicly — to curry and eat my proof copy of The Enchantress of Florence if it didn't win. It won't. And I won't. So there." Shameful! We suppose we could understand if he were backing out of eating a tough, chewy stitch-bound hardcover first edition — but this is a soft-cover proof copy! Those things are delicious!

--Ladytron

Oh, Lynne

Jesus, Lynne. It's not enough that you drove both of your children into the horrific world of show biz, apparently couldn't teach little Jamie Lynne about birth control, and totally abandoned your eldest daughter when she went crazy? I mean, at least there's no "Living Spears" show out there, but I'm sure if you'd thought of it before Dina Lohan, you would have been all over that shit.

And now, your "parenting memoir" (which I believe is how it was originally shopped around) is basically a tell-all about your mentally unstable daughter who is only better because her former-boozy dad stepped into to save her? Have you no shame woman?

And now, because I apparently have no shame either, some tid bits from the leaked pages:

1. Brit lost her virginity at 14 to her high school football boyfriend. He was 18 (ahem. statutory rape. cough). So I guess Justin didn't get to take her v-card after all.


2. Brit started drinking back in the Mouseketeer days - at 13. Christ, even I didn't get drunk for the first time until I was 15...


3. ...which is apparently the age when Britney discovered drugs, after going to L.A. to record Baby One More Time (which I own and still listen to. "You drive me craaaaazy.")


4. At 16, Brit stepped it up a notch and was caught with coke and pot on a private jet.

Oh, also, Lynne feels REAL BAD about the whole thing and kinda blames herself. Yeah, so does everyone else, Lynne. So does everyone else. At least you didn't put a picture of Brit being wheeled off to crazytown on the cover. That's about the nicest thing I can say at this point.

--Paige Sexie

Biblical Babbling

Time Magazine has a new article out a 1st century BC tablet that challenges the idea that Jesus's resurrection was unique. Since the Bible is a book, I'm going to stretch this into the realm of publishing news. As in OMG, did the apostles totes rip off some other author's work? I mean, one of the basic arguments about the resurrection (according to Time, at least, and I'll go with them since I assume they did research and junk) is that it's unique:

This, in turn, undermines one of the strongest literary arguments employed by Christians over centuries to support the historicity of the Resurrection (in which they believe on faith): the specificity and novelty of the idea that the Messiah would die on a Friday and rise on a Sunday. Who could make such stuff up?

If certain interpretations of the tablet are to be believed, well, I guess the apostles kinda did. Or at least, stole someone else's miracle and applied it for their own uses. Hmm, well. I guess if that's true, we should all feel a little bad about coming down so hard on Frey, Jones/Seltzer, and all the other fake memorists. If even saints (are the apostles saints? some of them are, right? I mean, except for judas) fall victim to the temptation of a better story, how are we mere humans supposed to do better?

--Ladytron

ps. in a preventative measure to ward off hate mail, no, I am not actually equating James Frey with Matthew, Luke, John, etc. it's called sarcasm. please don't write me lectures about the merits of christianity. if you feel that strongly, you shouldn't be reading this blog.

Gawker forgets they've already covered author...

Trolling through Gawker today, I caught sight of a post about Craig Davidson, author of The Fighter. Now, for those of you loyal readers, you may remember that Slunch covered last year's fight between Craig and fellow-scribe Jonathan Ames - and scooped EVERYONE (suck on that) with the first pics of Jonathan Ames and girlfriend Fiona Apple.

Anyway, today's Gawker post referenced an article in the Guardian - a piece about his steriod use while doing research for his book and the impact it had on his body. What Gawker failed to realize, however, is that 1) this piece appeared in Esquire already and 2) they should have already been familiar with Craig from the event they ATTENDED and COVERED on their site. I know you guys have had a lot of turnover recently, and that Josh and Emily (everyone's favorite ex-couple) are no longer there, but come on. A little research please.

--Ladytron