| A Moment of Jen | |||
 Click here to read an excerpt from THEN CAME YOU posted by Jen at 1/17/2012 10:21:00 AM
 Why isn't this woman smiling? Back in the summer of 2010, some female writers (including me) used the occasion of the orgy of coverage around Jonathan Franzen’s FREEDOM to make a point that seemed obvious to anyone paying attention: the New York Times does not do a very good job at covering women writers. After a tsunami of indignation swelled across the Internet – a tsunami that, unfortunately, was directed not at the Times, but at the female writers who dared to complain about its policies -- Slate.com confirmed the problem: of the 545 books reviewed between July 2008 and August, 2010, 62 percent were by men, 38 percent were by women…and of the 101 books that were reviewed twice in that time period, 71 percent were by men. Did the Times do any better a year after FREEDOM? To quote Reverend Lovejoy of Simpsons fame, short answer yes with an if, long answer no with a but. No male writer received the kind of saturation-level combination of reviews, profiles, think-pieces and mentions that surrounded Franzen's new book...but if you're hoping for equality, the paper's got a long way to go. I counted the number of novels and short-story collections that were written up in the Times, mostly because fiction is what I write, and what I read. Numbers first, analysis at the end. In 2011, the Times reviewed 254 works of fiction. 104, or 40.9 percent, were by women, and 150, or 59.1 percent, were by men. Of the works of fiction that got two full reviews, 21 were by women, 22 were by men. Of the works that received one full review plus a mention in a round-up, 5 were by women, 11 were by men. (This can be largely explained by Marilyn Stasio’s weekly round-up of crime novels). Finally, of the works of fiction whose authors were reviewed twice (either with two full reviews, or review plus roundup) and profiled, one was a woman and ten were men. The men who received two reviews plus a profile were David Foster Wallace, Albert Brooks, Julian Barnes, Kevin Wilson, Nicholson Baker, Tom Perrotta, Russell Banks, Jeffrey Eugenides, Haruki Murakami and Allan Hollinghurst. The only woman who received two reviews plus a profile was Tea Obreht (who also received a mention in the TBR column). J. Courtney Sullivan (a former Times employee), received a full review and a round-up mention, and was featured in the “Sunday Routine” column, where she discussed her preferred brunch, her work habits, and her favorite dog park. Sullivan also appeared in the "Inside the List" column, wrote a book review, and published a piece on her hobby -- dollhouses. Ann Patchett was reviewed twice, and was written up in a story that had to do with her buying a bookstore than her as a writer. Ann Beattie was also reviewed twice for her book, MRS. NIXON, and mentioned in T Style, in a Q and A about holiday gifts. (Also featured? Gary Shteyngart and Jeffrey Eugenides.) No female novelist received two reviews plus a Sunday Magazine profile, while two men (Nicholson Baker and Haruki Murakami) hit that trifecta. The only woman novelist profiled in the Sunday Magazine was independent publishing sensation Amanda Hocking. None of Hockings’ books were reviewed in 2011. The magazine also ran a great piece on cartoonist and nonfiction author Lynda Barry and her "workshop for nonwriters." Barry's last novel, CRUDDY, was published in 2000. Finally, there’s the issue of timing. The ideal situation for an author is to have a new book reviewed within days of its publication. New books hit shelves and e-tailers on Tuesdays, which means a review the Sunday before is ideal, as is any day-of-publication ink. Of the authors who received two reviews within two weeks of their publication date, seven were women and twelve were men (David Foster Wallace, whose THE PALE KING was published on April 4 and received his reviews on March 31 and April 5, almost made the cut.) The year had some bright spots. Commercial mystery writers Lisa Scottoline and Chelsea Cain were reviewed, as was YA queen Meg Cabot and chick lit-ish writer Allison Pearson. Of the five works of fiction chosen as the year’s best, three were by women: Karen Russell's SWAMPLANDIA!, Eleanor Henderson's TEN THOUSAND SAINTS and Obreht's THE TIGER'S WIFE. Only one of them – THE TIGER'S WIFE – was reviewed twice, while both men who received the honor (Chad Harbach and Stephen King) also got two reviews. The Times showed improvement, at least in terms of fiction, in the two-review department, but the disparity between men and women who get that coveted two-reviews-plus-a-profile is still shocking. Final thoughts? Like they say on the subways, if you see something, say something…and if you don’t see something, say something about that, too. Social media means that everyone gets a voice – not just authors and publishers, but readers, too. So if you believe that PEN-prize winning Jennifer Haigh's new book FAITH deserved better than a throwaway mention under the heading “For the Ladies” in a Janet Maslin summer beach-book round-up…or if you notice that Tom Perrotta got two reviews and a profile within three days of publication, while Erin Morgenstern’s THE NIGHT CIRCUS received a single review, three weeks after its pub date…or if you wonder why memoirist Meghan O'Rourke is posing in a Missoni sweater in T Style Magazine, while novelist Gary Shteyngart talks technology...or if you believe the Times could have swapped one of its multiple pieces on well-connected cross-dressing memoirist Jon-Jon Goulian for a write-up of National Book Award-winning Jesmyn Ward (who was eventually reviewed, once, months after SALVAGE THE BONES was published)…or if you believe that a book review that makes space for mysteries, thrillers and horror novels can also spare a few paragraphs each week for romance, commercial women’s fiction and quote-unquote chick lit, get on Twitter, get on your blog, post something on Facebook. Speak up. The near-equality among the twice-reviewed and the best-of lists, and the occasional not-entirely-dismissive mention of a commercial female author suggests that, even if they’ll never say so, people at the Times are paying attention. Things can change. (Last but not least, a special thank-you to my assistant, the indomitable Meghan Burnett, who compiled all these numbers). | # Tuesday, December 06, 2011 posted by Jen at 12/06/2011 12:23:00 PM Remember that old Andre Agassi campaign where he finger-combed his mullet and told us that “image is everything?” Take that and triple it when it comes to ethics in book reviewing. Readers deserve a critic’s honest take on a book, an opinion that hasn't been influenced by the critic’s relationship with the author or her publisher. Because the community of critics and writers is small and incestuous, with plenty of connections and lots of overlap, editors are meticulous about making sure that the reviews they run are beyond reproach. A reviewer cannot share a blood relation or a bed with the author of the book she’ll be considering. She can’t have written a blurb or be thanked in the acknowledgments of the book under consideration, or have blurbed or thanked its author. Critics can’t review the work of a friend, or an enemy. Generally, reviewers are required to disclose any relationship – any at all – that they have with the author. Did you ever work at the same university? Judge a contest together? Win the same fellowship, sit on the same panel, attend a writers’ conference at the same time? The editors want to know, because they want to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, of log-rolling or score-settling or a review that is, or even seems to be, ethically tainted. They want their reviews to be fair, and to look that way. Among the list of thou-shalt-nots is a rule that’s so basic that editors could be forgiven for not even mentioning it: thou shalt not take money from the publisher to promote the book you’re reviewing. That's why it was surprising to find the Minneapolis Star-Tribune publishing Bethanne Patrick's review of Joyce Carol Oates’ book THE CORN MAIDEN…the same book that Patrick, wearing her #fridayreads hat, had done a paid giveaway of the month before. (Full disclosure: Joyce Carol Oates was one of my creative writing professors in college, some twenty years ago). Patrick was assigned the review in August. She turned in her review in October. At some point between October and November, she negotiated the promotion with Oates’ publisher. Star-Tribune Senior Editor Laurie Hertzel said in an email interview that at no point did Patrick disclose that she was doing a paid promotion for the book she’d reviewed. Hertzel said she “did not know about the financial relationship (between Patrick and Oates’ publisher) before the review was published.” In fact, Hertzel said didn’t even know that there was a paid component to Fridayreads. This should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been following the Fridayreads saga, and who know that Patrick, who has been doing paid promotions ranging from $750 to $2,000 since March of this year, chose to disclose that fact that Fridayreads is “a hashtag and a business both” halfway down a FAQ page on a website, as opposed to on Twitter and Facebook, as FTC regulations require, and did not label promoted tweets as such. When all of this was pointed out, by me and other writers, Patrick essentially threw up her hands and pleaded ignorance. Things moved fast, steps were skipped, the Internet’s a big, confusing place. Maybe she didn’t do everything right, but she didn’t mean to mislead anyone and she’s sorry if she did. Which is the same line she’s repeating now that the book review-promo conflict has come to light. "I'm in new territory here," she tweeted yesterday. Except disclosing a conflict to a newspaper editor isn’t new territory, or even new media. It’s fundamental. It’s Book Reviewing 101. Readers and writers understand how rapidly the ground is shifting as the conversation about reading moves from print media to the Internet, where book bloggers work multiple jobs and sometimes have conflicting allegiances. Reasonable people can make allowances for honest mistakes…but not telling an editor who’s assigned you a review that you’ve been paid to promote that same title? That’s hard to understand…particularly from someone who’s worked in the publishing world for years. Hertzel said Patrick’s future as a freelance critic for the Star Tribune is now under review. But there’s a bigger issue here than the critic who made bad choices, the editor who was kept in the dark, the author whose glowing review now looks fishy, and the readers, who now have reason to wonder whether what they read in their morning paper was an honest assessment or a bought-and-paid-for Valentine. Authors deserve reviews that are fair and impartial. Other freelance critics and book bloggers don’t deserve the cynicism and suspicion that they’ll receive in the wake of Patrick's double-dip. Most of all, readers deserve reviews that are not, and do not appear to be, influenced by relationships, connections, or -- above all -- money. | # Sunday, November 27, 2011 posted by Jen at 11/27/2011 06:48:00 PM By now, people who follow publishing news are familiar with the headlines from last week’s Fridayreads brouhaha: popular hashtag revealed as a business, too! Proprietors apologize for not properly labeling promotional tweets! “We may have made mistakes, but we’ve got ethics!” they claim. When it began, #Fridayreads was a popular hashtag that was billed by its founder Bethanne Patrick, who tweets as @thebookmaven, as a “global community of people who come together each week to share whatever they’re reading.” Last week, Patrick admitted that Fridayreads is a hashtag and a business both, a business that charges publishers fees from $750 to $2,000 to host giveaways, author Q and A’s, “twitter tours,” and post positive tweets about their books. Now that the business aspect is out in the open, there’s another question to consider, one that’s bigger than the issue of why Patrick and her colleagues chose to disclose the moneymaking component of a Twitter hashtag on a website few would have occasion to see, and whether they really believed that disclosure was sufficient: namely, why does any of this matter to readers and writers? My own full disclosure: I found out that Fridayreads was selling services after a new online literary magazine called Book Riot ran a story that criticized me and Jodi Picoult for the crime of being insufficiently pissed about the coverage novelist Jeffrey Eugenides received (yes, this is the life I lead). A few of the Riot’s employees were kind enough to tweet the link at me, just to be sure that I saw. I read the story. Then I went to the masthead to figure out who was in charge of this new magazine, and was surprised to learn that Patrick, who I’ve met once and who has always been friendly to me on Twitter, was the Riot’s new executive editor. I went to Patrick’s Twitter page, to see whether her new job was mentioned. It wasn’t, but her Twitter page led me to the Fridayreads home page (which also failed to mention Patrick’s new affiliation). The home page led me to a link to the FAQ page, and, deep on the FAQ page was the news that the Fridayreads services were for sale (the page also revealed that two of Fridayreads’ three employees also have positions at Book Riot). How many casual readers and tweeters would follow such a serpentine path, figure out how Fridayreads worked, and make an informed decision about whether they wanted to participate and be counted not just as a reader but as a potential consumer of the books Patrick was selling? My guess: not many. In addition to posting their disclosure on a website, while most of #fridayreads happens on Twitter and Facebook, the people running the hashtag failed to clearly label promoted tweets as promoted. This is a problem, too. As others have noted, the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection has rules spelling out how bloggers and Twitter users must disclose when they’re paid to endorse or mention a product. The rules make it clear that “a single disclosure doesn’t really do it because people visiting your site might read individual reviews or watch individual videos without seeing the disclosure on your home page," and that promoted tweets have to labeled as such, with an #ad or #sponsored or #promoted hashtag. I won’t speculate about whether the disclosure-on-a-website and subsequent failure to label promotional tweets correctly was deliberately deceptive or merely clueless. But I do want to talk about why disclosure and transparency matter. On Monday, Patrick issued an explanation/apology on her website. In the comments section, someone named “Chris” said this was much ado about nothing. “It was obvious that someone was getting something for hours of hard work.” In other words, duh, of course the Fridayreads crew was getting paid. You’d be a naïve idiot to think otherwise. That’s my biggest problem. I don’t believe that the vast majority of authors, or literary bloggers, are secretly or semi-secretly for sale. I don’t think that publishing is a private club run behind a locked door with winks and nods and secret handshakes, where insiders know the truth about how things really work, and the outsiders are left in the cold, guessing. It worries me that readers are going to come away from the Fridayreads contretemps believing that’s the case: that there’s a story that gets handed to the public, and then there’s the truth that gets whispered among the members of the club, who all know that of course litblogger A runs hashtag B and also works for magazine C and who don't think the public needs to know that a hashtag that presents itself as a fun exercise in community-building is quietly a business on the side. In ten years as a novelist, that hasn't been my experience with publishing professionals, or other authors, or the dozens of literary bloggers I've met. Implying otherwise is an insult to every blogger who ever did an interview or a giveaway because she loved a book or an author and wanted to get out the word. It’s an insult to every author who ever gave an honest blurb or recommendation, or tweeted, “Guys, you’ve got to read this” because he believed it, not because the publisher slipped him some cash or he expected a favor down the road. It’s an insult to the authors who do interviews and Q and As and post advice and links and the stories of how we got started on our blogs, who do giveaways and pay for the postage out of our own pocket because we want to give back to the reading and writing community, to support other authors, to encourage the newbies, to celebrate books in a world where opportunities to do so are shrinking, and are too often given to the usual suspects. It’s an insult to the bloggers who have chosen to monetize their content publicly and honestly, the ones whose ads look like ads and whose disclosure policies make it clear when they get books to review or give away from publishers. Nobody’s running a literary blog or magazine to get rich. Most writers who maintain blogs end up losing money, not making it. Should a blogger decide to try to turn their hobby into a paying endeavor, nobody rolls their eyes or clutches their pearls. We're all used to seeing ads alongside a blog post, or a request for sponsorship on a literary website, or a virtual tip cup at the bottom of a post or a review with a note saying, “Hey, if you like what I’m doing, consider supporting it.” I don’t think anyone begrudges the Fridayread folks the ability to make money from their endeavors, if they’ve found a way to do it honestly. But honesty matters – to readers, to writers, to bloggers and Twitter users, to those who’ve chosen to monetize their content in a clear and public way, and those who continue to do what they do for community and good karma instead of cash. In the midst of the Twitter conversation someone wrote to say that I was wrong to imply that Patrick was dishonest. “If you knew her, you’d never say that,” he claimed. I don’t know Bethanne Patrick or her colleagues, except on the Internet…but I believe that you know people through their actions. If they’re honest, if they’re ethical, you can see it in the choices they make. If they aren’t, no amount of indignant insistence otherwise will change your mind. The Fridayreads people have taken the steps of saying the right things, of adding the hashtag #promo to their promoted tweets and updating the Fridayreads FAQ page to note that the hashtag is also a business. Here's hoping that their actions continue to reflect their words. | # Friday, October 28, 2011 posted by Jen at 10/28/2011 11:16:00 AM
 The hands-down, all-time chart-topping question writers get is, “where do you get your ideas?” Usually we mutter something jokey and self-effacing about Target or the Idea Elves, because the truth, at least for me, is, we don’t know where ideas come from. They just come…and whether they arrive as an image, or a scrap of dialogue, or a what-if question, it’s hard to say where they’re born. At least, that’s true most of the time. But, on Tuesday, I had an idea, that turned into a story (my first-ever horror story!), and I can chart exactly how it happened. I spoke at an event Tuesday night, out in the suburbs, and I was driving home, letting my trusty GPS be my guide. As I tooled through the darkness, along a deserted road I’d never been on, I thought, What if this thing doesn’t want me to get home? What if it sends me somewhere else entirely? On Wednesday morning, I sent out a tweet asking if anyone had ever written a story about a possessed GPS. A few people mentioned the great Stephen King story, “Big Driver,” (it’s in his latest collection, FULL DARK NO STARS). But in that story, the GPS is a benevolent presence, almost a friend to the troubled heroine. I was thinking of a darker kind of GPS. And then, I started asking the big writers’ question: why? Why would a GPS want to do bad, bad thing? Just like that, I had a story. An abused wife. A dead husband who doesn’t want to stay dead. A gift-wrapped box in the attic…and a GPS that starts telling its new owner to make some seriously wrong turns. This was Wednesday morning. I emailed my brilliant agent and asked, if I write this thing, like, today, is there any chance we can get it up for sale on Halloween? She talked to my editor. My publishing house swung into action. I wrote the story…and it came really, really fast. Thirty-five pages in five hours fast. My agent and my editor both gave me notes. I revised it late Wednesday night and Thursday morning (the finished product clocked in at around forty pages, or 10,000 words). On Thursday afternoon, my copy-editor, Nancy Inglis took a pass. By Thursday night, we had a cover, designed by the amazing Anna Dorfman. Everyone there hustled to get this thing formatted, spruced up, and ready for your enjoyment. The story goes live on Monday – Halloween – and will be available on Amazon, on B&N and on iTunes for a mere 99 cents -- such a bargain! Technology is amazing. And my publisher’s great. I hope you have as much fun reading “Recalculating” as I did writing it. Happy Halloween. And if your GPS starts sounding like it’s angry with you the next time you take a trip, you might want to pack a map… | # Tuesday, July 05, 2011 posted by Jen at 7/05/2011 07:53:00 PM Greetings from Bungalow 5, on my last day in Los Angeles. Tonight, I’ll pack up my office and go out to dinner with the writers for “State of Georgia.” Which, by the way, got an amazing review in The New York Times. Tomorrow, I’m on a plane to New York. Tomorrow night, I’ll be live-tweeting “Georgia,” which airs at 8:30 on ABC Family. Tomorrow’s episode introduces a few of the show’s semi-regulars, Jo’s physics classmates Lewis, Leo and Seth, played by the very funny Kevin Covais (remember him from “Idol?”), Jason Rogel and Hasan Minhaj, all of whom are on Twitter…just put an “@” sign in front of their names, and you can’t miss them. On Thursday morning during the eight o’clock hour I’ll be on “The Today Show,” along with Harlan Coben, who writes some of my favorite thrillers. We’ll be giving our summer reading recommendations, so please tune in! Then, on Tuesday, July 12, THEN CAME YOU hits the shelves, and the e-reading devices, and I’ll hit the road, with stops in New York, Princeton, Philadelphia, the Chicago suburbs, and Kansas City. THEN CAME YOU has gotten some lovely early reviews, including the coveted four beach umbrella award from the New York Post, which said, “Weiner makes the unsympathetic women compelling, and chronicles the hard-luck ladies sans melodrama. We come to care about each one." You can check out the first chapter of THEN CAME YOU right here and look at my tour dates here. Please note: all readings will feature whoopie pies. Not because there are whoopie pies in the book (although now that I think about it, there should be), but because I like whoopie pies, and I don't trust anyone who doesn't. Thanks to everyone who checked out "Georgia," and I hope to see lots of you on the road. | # Tuesday, June 28, 2011 posted by Jen at 6/28/2011 03:46:00 PM Greetings from Studio City, where I've got of exciting news to report. First up: "State of Georgia" premieres tomorrow night (that's Wednesday, June 29) on ABC Family (which is NOT ABC -- it's on basic cable; check your channel guide) at 8:30 p.m.. The show stars Raven-Symone and Majandra Delfino as two best friends from a small town down South who are trying to make it big in New York City, under the benign neglect of Georgia's Aunt Honey, played by Loretta Devine. I hope you'll tune in for the premiere....and I hope you'll stick with the show. It's been an amazing experience, shooting a pilot and then working on nine new episodes, watching the show find its feet and find its voice as the weeks went on. I think that Georgia ended up in a great place -- a funny show with lovable characters and a lot to say about what it's like to take those first steps toward adulthood. You can read more about my book-to-TV transition in the Philadelphia Daily News and the Philadelphia Inquirer. Also, if you "like" "State of Georgia" on Facebook or follow me on Twitter, I'll be live-tweeting the premiere and posting pictures from our premiere party, as well as pictures of real-life BFFs watching the show on Wednesday night. On July 12, THEN CAME YOU comes out. THEN CAME YOU tells the story of four women and a baby. There's brittle, wealthy newlywed India who will pay any price to have a child. There's Jules, a college senior with a few big secrets, who becomes the egg donor, and Annie, who's struggling with financial constraints, an unhappy marriage and her own ambitions, who become the gestational surrogate. Finally, there's Bettina, India's skeptical stepdaughter, who thinks the whole thing is a mistake. The book's gotten some great early reviews, and I think readers will enjoy meeting each one of these women as they make their way toward becoming a family. I talked to Cosmo.com about how the book came into being, and you can, of course, read the first chapter here. Last but not least, the tour! I'll be doing readings, and handing out delicious whoopie pies, in New York City, Princeton, Philadelphia, Chicago and Kansas City, beginning on July 12. All the details are here, and I hope to see you there! | # Monday, May 23, 2011 posted by Jen at 5/23/2011 04:08:00 PM Hard to believe, but GOOD IN BED is ten years old this week! I remember like it was yesterday seeing the book in bookstores for the first time (and then trying to sneak it onto the 'New Release' octagon at a New York City bookstore, and having the clerk promptly put it back). If you haven't heard, we're celebrating with a "Win Cannie's Weekend" contest, where the lucky winner and a friend will get to experience Los Angeles Cannie Shapiro style. Two airline tickets, three nights at the Regent Beverly Wilshire (made famous in "Pretty Woman,") dinner at Asia de Cuba and a chance to watch a taping of "State of Georgia." Sadly, I cannot guarantee a makeout session with a movie star, but it could happen, right? To enter, click here, and tell me about the most remarkable thing that's happened to you in the last ten years. I've already read some wonderful essays -- hilarious and heartbreaking and everywhere in between. (PS: you have to enter through a Facebook app. If you're not comfortable with that, you can do it via my website right here). In other news, FLY AWAY HOME is out in paperback, and in bookstores now, as is the anniversary re-release of GOOD IN BED, that comes with a new introduction and a candle on Cannie's bed-cake. On June 29th, I hope you'll all tune in for the premiere of "State of Georgia," the sitcom I co-wrote and am executive producing, on ABC Family. Then, on July 12, THEN CAME YOU hits bookstores. It's a funny, moving, timely story of a surrogate pregnancy and how four very different women come together to form a family. I'll be posting the first chapter soon, and I hope you'll all enjoy reading it as much as I enjoyed writing it! | # |
|
||
