March 22, 2004
From the desk of Jane Galt:No blow too low . . .
That a quote-hungry publisher won't use it to their own ends. Especially if that quote comes from the New York Times. I believe it was Dennis Miller who said that if the New York Times book review said "This is the worst book I've ever read. The person who wrote it should be executed in a gas chamber", the publisher would shorten it to "A gas--The New York Times" and stick it on the front cover.
Today's particularly egregious example comes from Stephen King's new book. Asymmetrical Information has learned that the publishers have selected the following as a pull quote:
When they call the roll of the great figures of modern American literature Bellow, Miller, Morrison, Updike, Roth they can now add a name: Stephen King.
Good quote, right? Well, here's the text of the story they pulled it from:
When they call the roll of the great figures of modern American literature Bellow, Miller, Morrison, Updike, Roth they can now add a name: Stephen King. Yes, the Stephen King who wrote "Carrie," "The Shining" and "Christine," not to mention "The Dark Tower" books.The National Book Foundation, which hands out the prestigious National Book Awards, has decided to bestow its annual medal for distinguished contribution to American letters on the man who bestowed pig's blood and ax-wielding nurses on America's libraries.
You're probably tempted, as we were at first, to work up a sputtering head of indignation about this ... this ... indignity. But hang on a second. Ray Bradbury got the medal in 2000, and while he can now be painted as a man who gave a popular genre a literary flair, were they saying that when "The Martian Chronicles" made its debut in 1950?
And King will be feted by the same publishing world where Madonna is being touted as a children's book writer.
King has certainly contributed a lot. The foundation's Web site claims the 70 films, television movies and miniseries made from his work as a Guinness world record. He has created a subgenre that is said to have drawn in readers who may otherwise not have been inclined to pick up a book at all. He has also done something many other National Book Awardees have not done: made a pile of money. The publishing industry would very much like to figure out how he does it.
As would we all.
Now how can I, as a libertarian, chide the publisher for twisting the Times' words to its own ends? Well, it's not exactly truth in advertising, is it? And as a journalist, I'm repulsed, since doing this sort of thing is a major no-no in the biz. Although as such things go, it's surely a venal sin . . . I'd be shocked if many people pick up the next Stephen King novel on the basis of the Times' opinion. Still, it's healthy to keep in mind that with pull quotes, what you see is what you get.
I remember one of the NY theater critics saying a play had played up his quote of "A new high for Broadway", when he was talking about the ticket prices.
As pull quotes go, Jane, I don't think the Stephen King one is that bad. It's not like the phrase "Only a baboon would think..." was in the original article. Granted there's mild sarcasm in the article, but it's hard to get that into a book blurb.
If his publisher had used the "King has certainly contributed a lot" quote, would you object?
You can have even more fun with pull quotes that abuse the ellipisis. It may have been a joke, but I remember one critic complaining that his "Richard Gere completely fails in his attempt to be smooth and sexy," was shortened to "Richard Gere... smooth and sexy," or something like that.
Posted by: John Thacker on March 22, 2004 07:44 PMI'm confused.
Didn't he receive this more than six months ago? I remember reading the speech he gave.
Posted by: Susan on March 22, 2004 09:56 PMMy question would have to be, who in their right mind ever pays attention to quotes on the cover of a book when they're deciding to buy it? o_O
I don't know about anyone else but past experiences with the author and whatever description they have on what the book's about are more likely to be the deciding factors with me.
Posted by: Small Pink Mouse on March 23, 2004 07:34 AMWhile I agree in principle, I have a hard time getting too worked up about the elitist snobs having their words turned against them. It's quite simple how Stephen King makes his money. He writes books people like. I guess that's not good enough for The New York Times.
I'll reserve judgement on Madonna's book since I haven't read it. I assume that the author of the article has read Madonna's book and is judging it on its merits and not just on the author...
Bolie IV
Joe Queenan wrote a brutal review of "Leadership Secrets of Attial the Hun" for Forbes. He complained in the review that the book recycled twaddle in an attempt to create a cult classic.
Sure enough when the paperback came out, the burb on the cover said "A Cult Classic" - Forbes
Um, Jane -- I don't get your indignation. This is no Dowdism. The quote is exact and in context.
For sure, the original piece meant to be ironic, at least -- but the irony was directed at The National Book Foundation. Of course, it being the New York Times, the piece had to get smarmy. But it said what it said and I think it's fair to pull the first sentence.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on March 23, 2004 09:54 AMOkay, I might be a little offended by this kind of pull quoting from any other source. But, frankly, we're talking about the New York Times here. As Mr. Rogers alludes, the Times hasn't exactly been a paragon of virtue in honoring context. A certain editorial page writer discussing President Bush's evaluation of the War on Terror comes to mind.
Posted by: Bill on March 23, 2004 02:00 PM'venial sin' NOT 'venal sin'
geez , my ex-Catholicism is still paying big dividends
;)
That's hilarious.
I wonder what they could get out of Harold Bloom's article on Dumbing Down American Readers.
How about:
"...this year's award goes to King." - Harold Bloom
how can I, as a libertarian, chide the publisher for twisting the Times' words to its own ends?
I don't see why being a "libertarian" has anything to do with passing moral judgment where there's no governmental action involved. Wrong does not cease to be wrong simply because it is or should be legal; if it did, there wouldn't be much of an argument for libertarianism. (Of course, if you're talking about being a full-out Objectivist, that's another matter and one I'm not fool enough to wade into.)
Posted by: Crank on March 23, 2004 06:43 PMMad Magazine addressed this stunt forty years ago. The one example I remember was something like "How they got four stars to agree to appear in this awful film I'll never know - Noted Critic"
Comments are Closed.