Conversation of the Week: What Power Should Publishers Have Over an Author’s Work?
There are two stories currently making the rounds among literary circles, both asking the question: “What power should publishers have over an author’s work?”
Novelist Polly Courtney recently dropped her publisher, HarperCollins, for marketing her work with “condescending and fluffy” covers aimed at the readers of chick lit (which is defined by Wikipedia as – genre fiction which addresses issues of modern womanhood, often humorously and lightheartedly.)
Courtney says, “I’m not averse to the term chick lit, but I don’t think that’s what my book is. The implication with chick lit is that it’s about a girl wanting to meet the man of her dreams. [My books] are about social issues – this time about a woman in a lads’ mag environment and the impact of media on society, and feminism.”
The Guardian reports that a spokesperson for HarperCollins said, “Avon is right behind Polly Courtney’s timely and important book. Our experience tells us it has a great look and feel and we think Polly will be delighted when she sees it flying off the shelves.”
In a similar story, also from The Guardian, two, young-adult authors were approached by an un-named literary agent who told them to “straighten” a gay character if they wished to be represented.
Sherwood Smith and Rachel Manija Brown’s co-written YA novel, Stranger, includes, a gay character with a boyfriend. The two authors were told by the agent to, “make the gay character straight, or else remove his viewpoint and all references to his sexual orientation.” Smith and Brown refused, saying, “making a gay character straight is a line in the sand which I will not cross. That is a moral issue. I work with teenagers, and some of them are gay. They never get to read fantasy novels where people like them are the heroes, and that’s not right.”
Which leads us to our Conversation of the Week – What power should publishers have over an author’s work? Publishers are out to make money, for themselves and for the authors, but should the author have a say in how that money is made?
Join the conversation by tweeting your thoughts or by entering them below.
Twitter hashtag: #PublishersVS.
Gia Manry posted on September 19, 2011
I personally think that this is a really complicated issue. After all, most publishers aren’t non-profit organizations; it’s their job to sell the most copies they can, and the author benefits from that too, assuming it’s a standard royalties-based package. So while I understand Courtney’s unhappiness about being packaged at ChickLit and respect her decision, it’s hard for me to blame the publisher and marketing team for their decision, too.
I’m horrified, however, at the change of a character’s sexual orientation. That article is a fascinating read (it also dives back into the past when authors might be asked to change a character’s race), and I personally think this is something that authors AND readers should come down against, hard!
The difference between the two is that Courtney’s issue was primarily about the /marketing/ of a book, whereas Smith and Brown’s problem had to do with actually changing the /content/ of the book. Editors are obviously there to improve a work, and again, I understand where they’re coming from…but I think this move crosses the line.
Donna posted on September 19, 2011
I understand the point of publishing is to make money but this sounds a bit like “false advertising” to market something as chic lit when it is not. As far as the characters sexual orientation – how horrible if today, fictional characters are being put in the closet. I’m a bit shocked at this one and hope there’s a story behind the story; if not, yes, this crosses a line to be sure with publisher/editors. I think this just points out how critical the relationship between author and editor. Yes, money is the bottom line but there also needs to be respect and integrity in the process.
Felicia.Pride posted on September 19, 2011
As a writer who also has worked in publishing, there are times when publishers should step in–sometimes they do know what is best when it comes to sales. But overall, the publishing industry plays it safe, is too stuck on trends, and really needs to better embrace diversity. And well, publishers and authors usually don’t have collaborative relationships. They should.
Gia Manry posted on September 19, 2011
Donna and Felicia, I’m curious– what kinds of things SHOULD an editor step up and suggest? Obviously grammar/spelling/structure/flow, but when you get into actual content, what IS appropriate for them to suggest changes to?
Felicia.Pride posted on September 20, 2011
@Gia, you’ve covered in my opinion when editors should step in regarding content. However publishers sometimes do have expertise in cover design, book titles, marketing stuff. I stress sometimes.
Felicia.Pride posted on September 20, 2011
@Gia: Oh, but I am horrified with you!
Meg @ A Bookish Affair posted on September 21, 2011
I think that publishers should have some editing reign over the story but if their editing crosses over the line of actually changing fundamental parts of the story, it probably shouldn’t be done.
Gia Manry posted on September 21, 2011
Meg, I think you’re right…it’s just hard to know where the line is, I bet!