(Untitled)

[sartorias]

The unnamed agency in our previous post has chosen to come forward to present their perception of our exchange. We confirm that it was the agency we referred to. We stand by every word we wrote in our original article

Comments

[sartorias]

I guess I was naïve. I still can't figure out how the heck it would get out. From the outset we were being careful not to name names, as we believed that the issue was the self-censorship that we felt was going on in the industry. We never wanted the issue to be about this particular agency, but about a much bigger problem.

but you are right, there is that element in human nature that tends to reduce complicated and vexing problems to finger-pointing, as if calling somebody a villain is going to make the whole problem go away.

[barbarienne]

I'm not sure what your point is, here? Should past bad behavior by others direct good people to keep quiet?

[kalimac]

They say that what you say happened happened, but that you have given it an incorrect assumed context.

In that light, your statement, "We stand by every word we wrote in our original article," sounds evasive and weasely. I'm sorry to have to say that, but it does.

[sartorias]

we talked a long time last night and early this morning about just this issue. We decided in favor of a short sentence rather than entering into a long description of she said but she said. While that sort of thing will be highly entertaining to those who enjoy Internet vituperation, it shifts the focus to personalities rather than the issue at large.

However. I can't resist saying this much. If the conversation was about the problems of our book, why would Rachel feel obliged to explain her experiences teaching at the Virginia Avenue project, and why would I bring up my years of school teaching, and the fact that yes, there are gay kids in the middle grades, and they deserve to see elements of romance the same as heterosexual kids.

But I realize I cannot prove that either of us said these things, so . . . The short statement.

[rachelmanija]

They specifically said that being gay was the problem. They told us we could keep the character so long as he wasn't gay. We protested, and they said that maybe he could be revealed to be gay in later books, but not in the first one.

It's true that there were other cuts and changes they requested as well. We didn't mention them in the article because we felt that whether we agreed with them or not, they were unobjectionable on moral grounds and so irrelevant to the article.

[kalimac]

"They specifically said that being gay was the problem." Yes, you did make that clear in the original post. The problem is that not only do they say that's not true, but that they offer a scenario whereby you could have misunderstood their intent. (Which leaves aside the great big issue of whether intent covers for conduct, of course.) I expect that nothing short of an exact transcript of the conversation could resolve this issue, and I presume there isn't one. But the nature of the brief response above does not increase my confidence that you did not merely misunderstand them.

[juliansinger]

Wow, that was quick.

You were quite specific about not naming the agent, and you were also quite specific about focusing on what people could do, rather than blaming one person. The point is that market forces obvious, and taking the path of least resistance is also obvious, not that one person was a mustached villain.

[anderyn]

This whole situation is extremely upsetting -- one person that I really like (you) is being called a liar and an opportunist and people are jumping on the bandwagon. While I know I don't know you in person, I do think I have enough of a sense of your innate honesty that I know those accusations are wrong. But this is like the whole racefail issue -- people get on one side or another, and assume that the other side is wrong wrong wrong. And then we're all polarized. I hate that. This issue is much more complex than you lying or them lying -- or even a miscommunication in which you heard "a" and they said "b". It's about a whole paradigm of publishing which thinks that whitewashing characters on covers is good, so more people will buy the book; or that having a gay main character is bad, because less people will buy the book. I think they are underestimating the power of new and exciting and diverse characters to draw in readers. I know that I, as a reader, want to read something that's interesting and different and not just the same

[sartorias]

I sure hope that things get back to focusing on the problem. And there is a problem, or the response would not have been so overwhelming.

[akirlu]

And there is a problem, or the response would not have been so overwhelming.

I don't think that quite follows. There may well be a problem, I'm not saying there isn't, but I can posit plausible alternate reasons for the overwhelming response.

[beth_bernobich]

To me it follows because I saw "overwhelming response" refer to the number of other writers who said, "Yes, an editor/agent told me to make my gay character straight." (Though yes, there was a general overwhelming response.)

[cakmpls]

Maybe the lesson everyone should take from this is: always record a business conversation.

[sartorias]

No more speakerphone conversations, that's for sure.

[barbarienne]

The joy of a speakerphone is that one can set up a recorder next to it.

[longstrider]

Just remember the legality of that depends on the state/country both ends of the conversation are in.