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

Woohoo, more books on NPR (dot org)

NPR.org is adding more book coverage to the site with reviews from Jessa Crispin (who never returns my emails for Bookslut, so god knows what will happen now), John Freeman (who I saw speak once and was wearing a purple shirt, so I think I like him), and Laurel Maury (who I know nothing about). Perhaps a reaction to Yen Cheong's NPR Book Watch?

According to senior supervising producer Joe Matazzoni, NPR.org "can’t cover the book industry like PW or the New York Times. We’re here to try and point our audience to good books. Our audience identifies with our sensibility and looks to us for judgment and taste. We’re a filter.”

Hmm, filter? Are you trying to say that the reviewers at PW and the NYT don't have good "sensibility" or any "judgement and taste"? It seems like the purpose of any book review section is to be just that. To review books so you know what you're getting into before you buy it. And while, yes, PW reviews a lot of books, it's not as thought the Times just throws out book reviews willy-nilly. I'm pretty sure that there is a fairly lengthy consideration process. Plus, no offense, Joe - it is NPR DOT ORG - as in not the radio. I wonder if our bosses will be as excited about a listing on the website as they would be about an Alan Cheuse review or an interview with Terry Gross? Somehow, I doubt it.

--Ladytron

And another one's gone...

Sigh. Another day, another book reviewer bites the dust. Remember all the hoopla when Teresa Weaver was let go from the AJC? It seems like, now, disappearing BREs are just now an everyday part of a publicist's life. Frank Wilson from the Philadelphia Inquirer retired earlier this year - and from what we hear, not too happily. Karen Castro left the San Jose Mercury News. Sally Williams is leaving the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Arthur Salm of the San Diego Union Tribune is gone. William Grimes switched from the New York Times book page to write obits (WTF?). Tom Ginocchio took early retirement from "Good Day New York" (not technically a book reviewer, but a great source of bookings for local authors and those on tour in the NYC area). And now Marie Arana of the Washington Post is taking one of the buyout offers and leaving us as well.

And yes, I know we have alternate contacts to pitch, and the papers aren't doing away with the book sections entirely, but some us have spent quite a few years memorizing names and building up at least a slight familiarity and/or relationship with these reviewers, only now, to have to do it all over again. And, frankly, too much booze and other recreational pleasures over the years have made it difficult for me to retain too much new information at once. How am I supposed to keep track of the revolving door of reviewers? It's not fair, I tell you.

I don't have the time or patience to do research about whether the turnover at newspapers is limited to our BREs. I doubt it is, but if we isolate it to just that, it brings us back to the ever-present issue...our book review sections are shrinking, changing, or disappearing - making it harder and harder for us to get any coverage, unless we happen to be publishing Garth Stein. So guys - what should we do? It seems as though the internet is our answer, but will there ever come a day when we get patted on the back for getting coverage from a blogger rather than a "legitimate" reviewer?

--Ladytron

Bob Hoover is my new hero

Ha! Bob Hoover over at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published this article yesterday about how despite all the fake memoirs of late (Frey, Seltzer, that Holocaust lady), publishers still keep churning them out. Bob nicely takes the most recent and soon-to-be pubbed memoirs, divides them into sub-genres, and gives classic one line summaries. I have now come to the conclusion that Bob Hoover is an underappreciated (not to mention genius) BRE and should also be writing for Slunch. Check out his memory category breakdown below:

I'm sick, but it only hurts when I write about it: This is a favorite style of memoir. It differs from the "I'm an addict of some sort" in that the misfortune is not the fault of the writer.

Bad girls save themselves: In this appealing and well-worn route to publication, women of good breeding and education wind up in the gutter, then crawl out.

That old standby, celebrity

Guys do crazy things so they can write about it

Nobody knows the trouble I've seen -- till now

My fascinating life, updated

I'll leave it to you to click through and see who's books landed where (and how Bob summed each one up).

--Ladytron

ps. did you guys know that there was a sequel to Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs?!? I don't how I missed this. Hmm, anyone want to hook me up with a publicity email for Antheneum?

oh noes...one more reason PW sucks

Oh, PW. First, you refuse to tell us the review status of the all the books we send. Then, you write obnoxious blogs about how publicists could do their jobs better. And now, you're cutting the payment for your reviewers - the only people at your magazine who actually matter:

Dear Reviewer,

We are under constraints to reduce our expenses and must reduce the fee we pay to reviewers. Any reviews assigned after June 15 will be billed at $25 per review. However, you will be credited as a contributor in issues where your reviews appear. Please know that we value the work you do for us. Your astute reading and writing are what make our magazine so valuable in the industry and we regret this necessary action. All of us here are also experiencing change but we expect that we will continue to be the gold standard in book reviewing.

Sigh. I think we can safely expect less starred reviews and more mean ones. 'Cause if someone was only paying me 25 bucks to read an entire book and write something about it, well, I would be even more bitter than I usually am.

--Ladytron