From Publishers Weekly:
The publication of American Dirt raised a host of issues that the publishing industry is likely to be dealing with for some time. The release of the novel forced the industry to ask who should write certain books, reignited the conversation over the lack of diversity within the industry, and also exposed the continued lack of understanding of the Hispanic/Latino consumer by most all publishers.
On January 29, a statement by Bob Miller, president of American Dirt publisher Flatiron Books, noted that the publishing house was “surprised by the anger that has emerged [in response to the book] from members of the Latinx and publishing communities.” The anger was the result of Flatiron’s demonstrated lack of understanding of Latino readers. This lack of understanding is by no means unique to the imprint but is a reflection of a prevalent problem within the book publishing industry. It is clear that the gatekeepers in publishing do not reflect, nor do they appreciate, the complexities of Latinos. Latinos are not a homogenous group; they are as vastly different as the general population, but with the added intricacy of acculturation.
The vast majority of adult trade books are written and published with the white, non-Hispanic reader in mind, at the exclusion of multicultural readers. Can the publishing industry afford to continue on this path? The consumer landscape has greatly changed in the last 20 years. The country has become much more diverse: almost 40% of the U.S. population is nonwhite, and almost 50% of Gen Zers are from communities of color.
This is a shift the industry must recognize and address, as most other industries are already devoting greater resources to capture revenue from diverse communities. Publishers can’t afford to continue publishing for 60% of Americans while excluding the rest. It just doesn’t make business sense.
Some publishers think they have solved the problem by having an imprint or two dedicated to books by authors of color, but diverse voices should be part of all publishing plans and not relegated to a single or limited number of imprints. Creating an imprint for these titles often leaves their authors pigeonholed and without the possibility of reaching wider audiences.
Marketers and publishers also need to go beyond the thinking that Latino readers will only read books written by Latinos or that black readers will only read black authors. That is a simplistic formula publishers often use to reach nonwhite audiences, but it will never deliver on the true potential of reaching multicultural readers. This signals a problem with an industry that lacks understanding of the multicultural consumers and seldom markets to them.
Link to the rest at Publishers Weekly
PG is confused by the OP, (written by a multicultural marketing expert (is the marketing expert multicultural or is her (PG knows he shouldn’t assume even though there’s a photo in the OP) expertise primarily in the field of multicultural marketing? (or both?))) (PG apologizes if he has inadvertently and without malice aforethought used any parenthesis in a racist or gendered manner. If he has done so, he will promptly seek counseling from a multicultural marketing parenthetical expression expert.)
- The publisher published a book about a group that is underrepresented in books from traditional publishers – Latinos.
- The publisher didn’t understand Latinx readers.
- The publisher and author took heat for the book because it was not written by a Latino.
- Publishers are wrong because they have a couple of imprints that publish for people of color (and presumably have sufficient expertise to do so without offending anyone).
- Publishers are wrong to think that Latinx readers will only read books written by Latinos.
- Publishers should publish more books by and about Latinos and make certain they don’t offend Latinx readers.
PG suspects more than a few publishing executives may be thinking (but not saying) that they will allow other publishers walk through the minefield of racial grievances and firm up the rules before venturing back into the business of publishing books by and/or about racial minorities.
Another question occurred to PG – What if an editor of color accepts a book about people of no special color which is written by an author of color? Is someone going to complain? Is review by a sensitivity expert required?
PG suspects he’s not the only person who doesn’t care (and almost never knows) the color of the author of books he reads (more often than not, he ends up forgetting the author’s name as well).
PG certainly doesn’t remember the publisher or the imprint and has no knowledge of either’s race/gender/policies relating thereto, etc. (PG knows he probably should pay attention to that stuff, but he doesn’t. He only really pays attention when somebody gets sued.)
Is PG lacking in virtue of some sort?
This is a shift the industry must recognize and address, as most other industries are already devoting greater resources to capture revenue from diverse communities.
The industry doesn’t have to recognize anything. Why should they? They can make a pile of money without following the orders of various grievance groups. Looks like it works pretty well.
American Dirt Amazon ratings:
Hard cover #22
Paid Kindle #27
If DIRT had gotten a $3000 advance nobody would have given a hoot.
Give it a “7-figure” advance and they get a crapstorm.
There’s more going on here than just “cultural appropriation”.
There’s the money allocation but there’s also the publishers’ blithe fumbling from catfight to catfight without changing anything or taking note of anything going on outside their offices. These kinds of catfights are totally predictable by anybody who knows what’s going on in the world outside corporate publishing but not by them.
Like, seriously, did nobody at Hachette consider there might be no blowback from a big budget Woody Allen memoir? Not only did they display a lack of understanding of their customer base (old news, that) and authirs’ hot button issues, but they also dispayed a total lack of understanding of their own employees, who staged a very public walkout to show their unwillingness to be associated with the book in any way.
Catfights come and catfights go and nothing changes.
Diversity marketing experts notwithstanding.
What customer base do they not understand?
And that sensitive employee group? Hatchette still has “Joey the Hitman, An Autobiography of a Mafia Killer?.” on its web site. “His story includes detailed accounts of his chillingly ‘professional’ murders of thirty-eight victims.
Lots of people would have bought Allen’s bio.
Last I looked, mafia killers are more socially acceptable than accused pedophiles.
Not the best example.
And paying big bucks to promote a book by a pedophile isn’t in line with either their self-appointed role of guardians of culture nor their money-grubbing ways. Their employees actually saved them from a self-inflicted blood bath.
I really don’t think there is anywhere we can look to check on the acceptability of 38 murders vs accused pedophilia. I’d suggest most would find the comparison too distasteful to answer.
And bloodbaths? The employees don’t seem to have a problem with Joey’s.
Simple test: average lifespan behind bars.
Hitmen are respected.
Pedophiles often die. Suspicious suicides. Mysterious shankings.
Besides, hitmen go after adults, most of which are “up to no good”. Rarely are true innocents targeted.
A book by a hitman might arouse some curiosity but a book by a pedophile just arouses disgust. No equivalence, no matter how you might try to reduce it to pure coinage. Cultural products depend on cultural acceptance, which hinges on mores and ethics. There are countries where a Polanski or an Allen gets celebrated but not in tbe US.
See if anybody else in tbe US picks up the Allen memoirs. The clock is ticking…
Not only this, but there is no equivalent to “Megan’s Law” et al restricting where a paroled murderer can live or go. There are laws restricting where a paroled pedophile can live or visit: not near schools and daycares, playgrounds, etc. A murderer doesn’t have to inform his neighbors what he’s done, a pedophile is often required to. This is a clear indication of which offense the general society is willing to tolerate.
Besides, hitmen go after adults, most of which are “up to no good”. Rarely are true innocents targeted.
An instructive example is Sammy “the Bull” Gravano. He’ll talk and talk about the 18 criminals he killed, but he sweeps under the rug a 19th victim: a 16-year-old named Alan Kaiser. The Boy Scout — literally! — had the misfortune of walking down a road just as Gravano was murdering someone who had robbed one of Gravano’s nightclubs. Kaiser was the only innocent person Gravano murdered, and the only victim he’s careful not to talk about when he goes on about being an ethical gangster. Gravano also never had to inform his neighbors or employees in Phoenix about his past life. Can you imagine discovering your boss was a mafia hitman?
A better comparison for Hachette would be a book by a Ted Bundy type, a prolific predator who purposely went after regular people. People just don’t care as much about bad guys who kill other bad guys. “Just world” fallacy says bad things only happen to bad people. But bad guys who go after innocent people? Different story. You don’t get more innocent than children, and Allen is accused of going after a child.
I consider comparisons of the relative respect society has for admitted hitmen vs accused pediphiles to be silly. But, the toleration the Hachette employees have for bios of confessed hitmen vs accused pedophiles indicates a bit of moral exhibitionism rather than true moral outrage.
But Megan’s law raises an interesting point. How would you address the fact that society has capital punishment for murder, but not for pedophilia?
My own idea is it is silly to try to rank one vs the other when both are despicable. So, I don’t. but I do point out the odd behavior of the Hatchette folks.
So, prisoner respect for hitmen means society shares such respect?
How would sales have fared if it was published?
The basic cart-before-horse issue is the mainstream publishers belief in “if we publish it, readers will come…” applied to any woke grievance.