MATH FOR PUBLISHERS

By Chris Daly

In today's Times, there's fresh evidence of the insanity in the trade-book publishing world. 

On page A26, there's a full-page, color advertisement for Ted Turner's new ghost-written autobiography. (If you don't write it yourself, is it still an auto-biography?)

Inside the Business section is a story about how the book came to be "written." Bad enough that we have to read that the ghost-writer, a former Turner employee, Bill Burke, in order to do his work on the  book, "skipped between Mr. Turner's ranches, three in Montana and one in the Patagonia region of Argentina." Not only that, but the ranch-skipping writer also had to put in a couple of hours a day fishing with his subjects. Phew!

In any case, the most objectionable part of the whole enterprise is this: Grand Central Publishing, a division of Hachette, paid a $5 million advance. 

For what, I wonder? 

Surely, Mr. Turner did not need $5 million to sustain him during the "writing" of the book. In the latest Forbes magazine listing of the "400 Richest Americans," Mr. Turner checks in at No. 190, with a net worth estimated at $2.3 billion. To him, $5 million represents less than a quarter of 1 percent of his net worth. That hardly seems like enough money to motivate Turner to do something (as if he needed motivation anyway -- he is hardly the retiring type).

Neither, presumably, did Mr. Burke need the money. He made a bundle working for Turner as head of Turner Classic Movies, then got, according to the Times, a "high-level digital job at Time Warner," then bugged out to Maine.

Here's my gripe with the $5 million advance: Instead of throwing money at already-rich pseudo-authors, Hachette could have used the same $5 million to award 50 advances of $100,000 each to 50 real writers. To most writers, $100,000 would make an enormous difference in whether they can consider a project or take it to completion.

Not only that, but consider this: There is a good likelihood that a book like Turner's -- which is essentially a vanity project about a guy most people feel they know all too well already -- will never "earn back" a $5 million advance. So, Hachette will end up losing money on the deal.

By contrast, if a publisher places 50 bets on promising projects by real writers, the likelihood is that at least a handful will turn out to be spectacularly successful, and earn back their advances multiple times. 

Am I missing something here? Please let me know. 

ON STUDS TERKEL

By Chris Daly

The Times offers "An Appraisal" today of Studs Terkel, who died last week. Studs was a great figure -- journalist, radio host, raconteur, pioneer oral historian, citizen of Chicago.

I thought I detected a strangely pinched and begrudging tone in Edward Rothstein's piece, as if he were groping for a category to put Terkel in (when he was truly sui generis), or as if he were reaching for a political basis to fault Studs for truly and consistently sticking up for the little guy.

In any case, I just wanted to add my own note of appreciation to Studs. Aside from all his well known accomplishments and his well deserved plaudits, Studs was also notable as an inspiration for me and others, who followed his work into journalism, history, and allied undertakings. When I was in graduate school studying U.S. history, I know I was under the spell of his great book Working, which took working people seriously as individuals. For me, Terkel's book was an important antidote to most traditional history, which viewed working people as a problem, and most Marxist history, which viewed working people as a magical force. 

Studs showed a example of a way to see people as groups and individuals at the same time. He'll be missed.  

CLASSROOM INDOCTRINATION?

By Chris Daly

The Times carries a piece today that asks the question: "Professors' Liberalism Contagious?"

The headline offers an answer: "Maybe Not."

Below is a story reporting on new research findings suggesting that the views of professors do not spread directly into the brains of our students. (Imagine that! We speak, and they don't immediately retain, accept, and embrace what we just said? ! ? Shocking... if true.)

It's a timely story, of course, with the obvious "news peg" of tomorrow's presidential election. And the research addresses a long-standing conservative hobby-horse: the supposedly liberal/radical bias that pervades university campuses and seeps into the minds of students.

The piece is worth considering, but I would just add a personal note, based on more than 10 years spent teaching at BU:

It is indeed important for every professor, during every class session, to make sure that every student feels comfortable expressing any honestly held view. Students also deserve to know that their work will be judged on its merits (and not on how closely their arguments conform to the professor's views).

 

The issue, I think is not really partisanship. The issue is the openness of minds, on all sides. 

NEW CHAPTER

I have just posted a version of the latest chapter of my book, Covering America. Chapter 11 covers the 1960s -- as defined by me, to run from 1962 to 1974. 

As always, any feedback is much appreciated.

Just roam on over to the section under the photo headed READ MY BOOK, and click on Covering America. 

Now, it's on to the FINAL chapter, which focuses on the digital revolution sweeping through all news media. That one should be ready in January.

Thanks to all readers.