It’s been interesting to see the whole American Dirt disaster unfold not just within the publishing world, but as a part of bigger conversation in places as mainstream as the New York Times and on social media. Looking at the Publishers Marketplace website definitely feels like a sort of secret underbelly of the publishing industry, where you can find similarly shocking faux pas and poor business decisions that didn’t get any play in major news publications like American Dirt did.
The front page of the website today features a write up about Barnes & Noble and Penguin Random House cancelling a “Diversity Editions” project that was set to roll out on Wednesday. Maybe I’m ill-informed, but I didn’t even know PRH and B&N were planning such a project, much less cancelling it.
The idea was to redesign the covers of twelve classic books typically featuring white characters “reimagined as people of different races” in honor of Black History Month. Yikes! I think this about sums up the problem with this project: “Critics asserted that Black History Month should focus on promoting black authors, not repackaging canonical works from primarily white appears to appear more diverse.” To make things worse, representatives from the ad agency who worked with PRH and B&N on this said they were inspired by none other than J.K. R*wling. Oh boy!
The whole thing has a similar feel to American Dirt--a problematic idea seen (almost) to fruition by the publishing industry machinery. Both make you wonder, Who approved this? The mind-boggling answer to this question is, of course, A lot of people, probably! These situations I think indicate that there’s a major diversity problem within publishing, and canonical literature, itself. Interestingly, the article mentions that the people leading this project were all people of color. There’s definitely not a completely straightforward answer on how to avoid situations like these from happening, but I think there needs to be a severe overhaul about how we all think about race, authorship, and the canon.
Another move towards a solution might also be to demystify the publishing industry. I found very little news coverage about this controversy online. Maybe if the goings-on of publishing were a bit more transparent, rather than sequestered to an obscure website, there could be more interest and oversight, and it would be easier to have productive conversations about the industry and how we can make it better.
The front page of the website today features a write up about Barnes & Noble and Penguin Random House cancelling a “Diversity Editions” project that was set to roll out on Wednesday. Maybe I’m ill-informed, but I didn’t even know PRH and B&N were planning such a project, much less cancelling it.
The idea was to redesign the covers of twelve classic books typically featuring white characters “reimagined as people of different races” in honor of Black History Month. Yikes! I think this about sums up the problem with this project: “Critics asserted that Black History Month should focus on promoting black authors, not repackaging canonical works from primarily white appears to appear more diverse.” To make things worse, representatives from the ad agency who worked with PRH and B&N on this said they were inspired by none other than J.K. R*wling. Oh boy!
The whole thing has a similar feel to American Dirt--a problematic idea seen (almost) to fruition by the publishing industry machinery. Both make you wonder, Who approved this? The mind-boggling answer to this question is, of course, A lot of people, probably! These situations I think indicate that there’s a major diversity problem within publishing, and canonical literature, itself. Interestingly, the article mentions that the people leading this project were all people of color. There’s definitely not a completely straightforward answer on how to avoid situations like these from happening, but I think there needs to be a severe overhaul about how we all think about race, authorship, and the canon.
Another move towards a solution might also be to demystify the publishing industry. I found very little news coverage about this controversy online. Maybe if the goings-on of publishing were a bit more transparent, rather than sequestered to an obscure website, there could be more interest and oversight, and it would be easier to have productive conversations about the industry and how we can make it better.
No comments:
Post a Comment