Monday News: Voat, Authors Guild, Go Set A Watchman, and Comic-Con
Publishing NewsAuthors Guild / censorship / Comic-Con / digital royalties / Free Speech / publishing / reddit / Voat17 Comments
Welcome to Voat: Reddit killer, troll haven, and the strange face of internet free speech -With the recent trouble at Reddit — from charges of corporate-minded censorship (the platform is owned by Conde Nast) to the controversy over Ellen Pao’s termination (both from those who protested her position and those who protested her firing) — some Reddit users have transferred over to a site called Voat, which appears to be a Reddit clone, which some users have found appealing, while others find concerning, both because of the less savory corners of Reddit, and also because of the difficulties in protecting speech without enabling or practicing censorship.
Some people want Voat to be a reset button, as Reddit was to Digg years ago. But to a casual visitor, the distinguishing features are its small-town feel, the relative ease of mocking the obese, and the volume of threads complaining about Reddit. And only the first of those things is conducive to a lasting community. For all the anger and betrayal that Voat members feel toward Reddit, hoping it crashes and burns right now might be the most counter-productive thing they could want. . . .
The site’s devotees frequently cite its founding principle as the reason they made the switch; the FAQ says “our policy is to not meddle and not censor content unless said content is illegal.” Reddit’s interim CEO Ellen Pao has said administrators only ban groups for harassing people outside their subreddit, not expressing themselves. But some people interpreted the decision as advertiser-friendly whitewashing and a slippery slope. Or, as one Voat user put it, “censorship at Reddit is getting out of control.” The recent blackout protest hasn’t improved the situation. –The Verge
Review: Harper Lee’s ‘Go Set a Watchman’ Gives Atticus Finch a Dark Side -So let’s think about this for a minute: Harper Lee wrote Go Set A Watchman before To Kill A Mockingbird, and basically rewrote it into what eventually became Mockingbird. And we’re supposed to believe that Lee was excited about the possibility of publishing this manuscript — a manuscript she was originally asked to re-write, and spent two years doing so, into a book (Mockingbird) that became a cornerstone work in American literature and culture. And in more than 50 years since its 1960 publication, neither Lee nor her sister ever even hinted that she had written Watchman. Why? Maybe because it was never meant to be published? I would love for Harper Collins to answer this question: how does Watchman not violate and undermine the literary and cultural legacy of Mockingbird.
Though “Watchman” is being published for the first time now, it was essentially an early version of “Mockingbird.” According to news accounts, “Watchman” was submitted to publishers in the summer of 1957; after her editor asked for a rewrite focusing on Scout’s girlhood two decades earlier, Ms. Lee spent some two years reworking the story, which became “Mockingbird.” . . .
Students of writing will find “Watchman” fascinating for these reasons: How did a lumpy tale about a young woman’s grief over her discovery of her father’s bigoted views evolve into a classic coming-of-age story about two children and their devoted widower father? How did a distressing narrative filled with characters spouting hate speech (from the casually patronizing to the disgustingly grotesque — and presumably meant to capture the extreme prejudice that could exist in small towns in the Deep South in the 1950s) mutate into a redemptive novel associated with the civil rights movement, hailed, in the words of the former civil rights activist and congressman Andrew Young, for giving us “a sense of emerging humanism and decency”? –New York Times
Authors Guild Slams ‘Inadequate’ E-book Royalty – As part of the Authors Guild’s “Fair Contract Initiative,” the organization critiques the 25% publisher royalty rate for ebooks, in the hopes that bestselling (aka more powerful) authors will stand up to publishers in an attempt to reset digital royalty rates for all authors. Because that’s going to happen anytime soon.
The Guild analysis traces the history of the e-book royalty rate, and points to the watershed moment in 2004 when Random House, which had been paying 50% of e-book revenue to authors, changed its rate “significantly.” This led to e-book royalties coalescing around the 25% level.
Acknowledging that authors and agents “ought to have pushed back” against the lower royalty, the Guild said that e-book sales were so low prior to 2009 that “it didn’t make much sense to risk the chance of any individual book deal falling apart over e-royalties.” The Guild added that when e-book sales rose, the organization wrongly assumed that authors would only sign with publishers offering an e-book royalty above 25%.–Publishers Weekly
Bryan Cranston said what?! The five biggest OMG moments from Comic-Con – Maybe it’s just that some things don’t translate well — like a joke that’s only funny when you hear it and not when you try to re-tell it afterward — but I’m kind of nonplussed at the idea that these are the highlights from Comic-Con. –CNN
Given the rest of them, I’m wondering why the Bryan Cranston one is even there. The rest, I can understand why they made this list, but some actor telling a crass “joke” seems out of place.
Because I am a Philistine I have not read To Kill A Mockingbird (I’ve seen the movie though, does that count?) but I’ve been following along with the story of the journey to publication of Go Set A Watchman. As I understand it, GSAW has not been edited by the author so it seems to me it’s not going to align with the characterisations in TKAM. I’m wondering whether readers will need to take the books as completely separate entities; as if each book is set in it’s own separate universe? Will there be a kind of cognitive dissonance for readers reading both books?
Too bad that Comi-Con round-up didn’t include the epic Dubsmash competition between Chloe Bennett and Clark Gregg vs. Hayley Atwell and James D’Arcy. Bennett & Gregg finally had to call on all the other Agents of Shield to overwhelm Agent Carter and Jarvis.
I’m still completely baffled by the decision to publish GSAW. Why would you release something that essentially undermines a major part of the narrative in TKAM? Why cast a shadow over a touchstone of American literature?
Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should, greedy publishers. The whole path to publication of Harper Lee’s “recently discovered” manuscript sounds fishy.
@Jeannie: In a word: Money.
Surprise, surprise, now the lawyer is hinting that she has found ANOTHER unpublished Lee novel: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/13/harper-lee-third-novel-lawyer-tonja-carter
That same article, however, includes a link to the Guardian’s review of GO SET A WATCHMAN, which is considerably more nuanced, even positive.
I still don’t think I’ll read it. I have very few real heroes left in my heart, and I want to keep Atticus Finch.
I grew up during the time period of accolades for a just released TKAM, and during that period, TV was full of family value shows. Sit-coms like “Leave it to Beaver” “The Danny Thomas Show” “The Dick Van Dyke show” “Father Knows Best” etc, where there was a core of goodness at the heart of the man at the head of the family. Even westerns like “Bonanza” and “Gunsmoke” would carry this theme, that there was a clear delineation between the bad guys and the good guys, no matter how many people Little Joe and Marshall Dillon had to gun down. Heck, even “bad girls” and “good girls” were clearly defined.
The anti-hero, while sexy (think Marlo Brandon in The Wild One) might be the guy you’d had naughty thoughts about, but society back then pushed and extolled the virtues of the average man who rose above and beyond when things got tough. In movies and books produced during that time, there was always a moral at the end of the story.
I say all this, because as I was taught TKAM as a beloved classic, as well as the movie with Gregory Peck’s Oscar winning portrayal, I can see how an editor or agent would want to change the Atticus Finch from the Go Set a Watchman portrayal to the now revered figure for some, in TKAM. For many, Atticus was a larger than life, literary hero. For me and mine, he embodied the white savior myth to a T.
I’m going to purchase and read the novel. What I find fascinating is how the character ended up changing for TKAM, and this is how Harper Lee originally envisioned the character. At some point on my other blog I plan to write a review on the new book vs TKAM, and how I view them both. Just from reading the excerpt online, this may be more of a time capsule regarding the truth of Lee’s experience in the south during that period. The new book won’t diminish what I think about TKAM, because I never bought into the myth of an Atticus Finch, who appeared to be more of a grand idea or hope during a time of racial upheaval in the US. But I do see why others would want to hold on to the Atticus they know and like the best.
@wikkidsexycool: That makes a lot of sense to me. And honestly, learning that Go Set a Watchman shows a dark side to Atticus Finch is the first thing that’s made me at all interested in it (although I don’t see me actually reading it). I read TKAMB in high school, and I will say that as a white girl in the 80s, I completely missed the white savior myth, although I like to believe I’d pick up on it now. And comparing the two books seems fascinating from a social history point of view, if not a literary one.
I really don’t have a lot of emotional attachment to TKAMB – it was just another book I had to read (I was an avid reader on my own, but the only required HS book I remember really enjoying was David Copperfield – the rest were pretty dreary – learning to analyze them was fun, but reading them was not).
That Bryan Cranston ‘joke’ was gross as hell. How is that remotely funny or appropriate?
@wikkidsexycool & Cleo: I thought this 2009 Malcolm Gladwell essay in The New Yorker, tweeted last night by author Emma Barry, was really on point. It argues that even in To Kill a Mockingbird Atticus was a Southern Populist, and not an activist for civil rights or social justice.
@Janine: I agree with much of what Gladwell says about Finch, and I think that one of the problems with his character is that the movie and the book have been conflated. I’d actually argue that the white savior characterization, as @wikkidsexycool refers to it, is much more a product of the film’s interpretation of Finch’s character. It’s been quite a few years since I read TKAM, but I found Finch to be pretty remote and utilitarian as a character. For me, Scout and Tom were the focus of the book.
Still, what enrages me about this situation is that GSAW’s publication feels like little more than a money grab, for a work that was likely never intended to be published as a stand-alone novel. I think there is much wonderful analysis and scholarship that will come out of comparing the two manuscripts, but why not just add it to Lee’s papers for donation to a university library, where the manuscript can stand as it was relative to TKAM? I so rarely care about how an author intended to have their work read, but in this case, where more than fifty years stand between TKAM and GSAW, during which Lee indicated ZERO interest in having GSAW out there after TKAM, I feel like the way this whole thing has played out is just gross.
@Janet: Yes. I haven’t seen the film but I have read TKAM and what you say makes a lot of sense. I didn’t read TKAM until the early 2000s and by then I’d heard so much about Atticus Finch. Based on reading the book alone, I couldn’t fathom the character’s reputation. I put the difference down partly to the passing of time — I wondered if he seemed more revolutionary or at least impressive when the book was first published in the 1960s. But I also thought it might have something to do with the film, so I’m nodding along here.
I also agree the publication of GSAW is a money grab, pure and simple. I think it was inevitable though. Mediocre works never meant to see the light have been published after the deaths of other famous authors — Hemingway, for example. But this feels so much more disrespectful because Lee is still alive.
Moreover, I think it’s very hard to know whether the characters from GSAW are supposed to be the same ones in TKAM, just viewed through a different lens, or much different earlier prototypes that bear the same names.
@Janine:
Hi Janine,
Thanks for the link. It was a very insightful piece.
Hi Janet,
I’m evaluating this based on what I recall transpiring when the original book was released, like the excitement it generated and how it was used as a conversation piece by both white and black alike. The book character of Atticus was revered and respected, almost as if he were a living, breathing lawyer.
Much like the accolades from some over The Help and its characterizations (and who would play certain characters), what I recall about life during the time TKAM came out was that it was being held up as another Kumbayah moment for the races. In school, there could be no debate on Atticus, considering the times. His “goodness” was evident by many book critics and educators who perhaps saw the character as a light of hope during segregation. He was a southerner who didn’t behave like the others, though no one really knew why, and didn’t question. And he was held up to show that not all southerners should be painted with a broad brush.
In truth, there were those in the black community extolling the virtue of the Atticus character, and that perhaps the character could be used to make others “see” what blacks had to go through. But then, a vocal few wondered why it always seemed to take a white character to view injustice for it to be valid.
Race was a hot button issue, with popular films like The Defiant Ones in 1958, starring Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis, a remake of Imitation of Life with Lana Turner and Juanita Moore as her loyal black maid/child care worker, And I recall All The Fine Young Cannibals, where Robert Wagner actually had a non-platonic relationship with singer Pearl Bailey.
On my non-fiction blog I plan on trying to recreate that time period to give readers a taste of what it was like.
The good thing about the internet, is that gushing reviews and opinions from the 60s about TKAM and its characters shouldn’t be too hard to find.
Just like the challenge of finding the right Scarlett O’Hara, the role of Atticus Finch was highly coveted.
Years prior to landing that role, Gregory Peck had another crucial role on anti-Semitism in the 1947 film “Gentleman’s Agreement.”
Here’s a link from TCM that has a bit of useful info, like how Rock Hudson was first choice for the role of Atticus:
http://www.tcm.com/this-month/article/71650%7C0/Behind-the-Camera.html
@wikkidsexycool:
In reference to my previous post, PBS has an article on how newspapers reviewed TKAM in 1960:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/art/newspaper-reviews-thought-kill-mockingbird-became-masterpiece/
@wikkidsexycool: Have you seen this one: http://www.theatlantic.com/past/unbound/classrev/mocking.htm.
I plan to read GSAW. I’m hoping it will end TKAM’s status as a cultural classic. Some things are just dated.
TKAM is about an individual’s decision to do the right thing, but it does not recognize that the social order was enforced with terrorism.
In fact what TKAM did was to make us feel like we’d be Atticus if the circumstances arose rather than to make us confront the cancer in American society and the perversion of the Constitution.