It’s only a few weeks before the mid-January publication of my first non-fiction book - Blacklisting Myself: Memoir of a Hollywood Apostate in the Age of Terror – and I am going through the usual authorial paranoid mood swings. Will I be loved or hated? Is my book a turkey or a golden egg? Lately I have allowed myself delusions of grandeur because of an early glowing notice in Blogcritics and now this amusing YouTube review. (Don’t miss it – it’s a hoot.) And the esteemed Commentary magazine has bought first serialization rights (an excerpt from my chapter on Richard Pryor and the ‘baby moguls’). And I have great blurbs from Ron Silver, Michael Barone and John Podhoretz. But that is not enough…
What about the New York Times? Never mind that I have loathed the newspaper for the better part of a decade, what will they say about me? Or will they say anything at all? My previous ten books have all been reviewed (for the most part pretty well) by the Times, but they were fiction – and, more importantly, I was not an apostate. Who loves an apostate, especially when it’s from the Times’ traditional ideology? And complicating matters is a feud between my publisher Encounter Books and the Times. The “newspaper of record” apparently abjured reviewing Encounter’s high-toned conservative books in recent years, so the publisher said arrivederci to the Times. They send the paper no more review copies.
So where does that leave me? Hoping some editor at the NYTBR will be so intrigued he or she will order the book on Amazon? Not bloody likely. Do I care?
Well… to be honest… yes, I do. I would love to be reviewed by the paper, but not for the usual reasons. Thin-skinned though I am, this once I would love the New York Times to slam me. That way people might come to my defense. It could create a little controversy and sell some copies. Come on, Grey Lady – make my day!
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
36 Comments
1. Lightnin' Hopkins:Roger, since the Times is in such a financial Pinch, er, bind, perhaps you should just send them a copy gratis. It may even slip past the first line of defense and get assigned to someone based on having the word ‘blacklist’ in the title alone. Of course, putting a phony title on the package like “Bush’s Folly” or “Che, The Magnificent!” wouldn’t hurt your cause any either.
Dec 27, 2008 - 6:05 pm 2. Larry:I wish you well, Roger. I’ll certainly read your book and if I’m very good, I’ll buy.
I’ve found your blog writings excellent reading and very encouraging. Thank you for all of your good efforts over the years and in the years to come.
Dec 27, 2008 - 6:06 pm 3. ahem:Roger:
I’d imagine that, as a writer, it’s very hard to get over wanting to receive great public acclaim–especially from the paper that has traditionally written the most prestigious reviews. I can understand your confusion. On one hand, it would be swell to have a bestseller on the NYT list. On the other hand, they’ve sunk so low intellectually that it breaks one’s heart. But rejection is hard. Hard.
This experience is going to test your soul. You’ll have to comfort yourself with the knowledge that excellence is its own reward–sometimes, it’s not recognized for years. There are fashions in thought, and you may be unfashionable right now. For once, you really have to believe it.
Dec 27, 2008 - 7:24 pm 4. ahem:PS: You’ve always wondered what you’d have done under certain adverse historical situations–I know I have, and I’d be surprised if I were the only one–and now you’re about to find out. Think Solzhenitsyn, and you’ll feel a lot happier.
Dec 27, 2008 - 7:27 pm 5. Mike_K:Roger, I submitted my manuscript to a university press and the acquisition editor liked it so she sent copies to four readers. When their reports came back, she was embarrassed at how negative they were so she sent them to me. They were full of errors (The book is a history) but the decision was they wouldn’t publish it. You see, I did not have a PhD in history. Now, four years later, the university that turned it down for publication uses it as a textbook. Last laughs are a solace.
Dec 27, 2008 - 7:34 pm 6. Sgt. Mom:Eh… I wouldn’t worry about it. Looking at what is on the NYT bestseller list – their readers appear to not be my cup of tea as regards my books, and I doubt they’ll be yours, either… unless you really relish the mental vision of eyeballs popping out of heads and heads exploding.
There is too much good stuff out there, that the NYT would never deign to notice, and readers ditto. Indy authors rule!
Sgt Mom (who writes as Celia Hayes… historical novels, would you believe – all about the American frontier. Some people call them westerns, which apparently according to tiresomely serious reviewers – like the NYT – is just to declasse for words, although I note that Zane Grey appears to still be in print and read devotedly.)
Dec 27, 2008 - 10:44 pm 7. David Thomson:“…what will they say about me?”
The New York Times will likely ignore you. They may pretend the book doesn’t even exist. It would be nice to get a positive review from this rapidly declining newspaper dinosaur. A glowing recommendation from a Times reviewer will indeed help to sell some books. Alas, it ain’t gonna happen. Our best hope is that the NYT goes out of business within the next few years. You should also not send a complimentary copy to the Times. The odds are simply too high that you would be wasting your time. You might be better off jumping into a cage of starving tigers.
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:01 am 8. Rob:It worked for Jonah Goldberg’s book; it got panned by all the usual suspects, the NYT, WAPO, TNR, etc., and it shot up to #1. Best of luck to you!
Dec 28, 2008 - 7:01 am 9. Scott:Well,Roger,at least you won’t make Oprah…all she winds up puffing are FRAUD memoirs!
Dec 28, 2008 - 8:10 am 10. MIke Reynolds:Will it be in the libraries? (not that I won’t buy it, of course, but just wondering….)
Dec 28, 2008 - 11:45 am 11. Peter G:Since you admit that would rather get a negative NYT review than none at all, the question then is would you rather get a positive review from them than a negative one?
This is purely hypothetical, of course. If they decide to review it, they will assign it to someone who is guaranteed to pan it.
Dec 28, 2008 - 11:51 am 12. Instapundit » Blog Archive » ROGER SIMON: Will the New York Times review my book and do I care?…:[...] ROGER SIMON: Will the New York Times review my book and do I care? [...]
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:19 pm 13. smagar:Roger, re. your hope that a NYT editor or writer will pick up the book, read and review it…
Remember Douglas Feith’s book “War and Decision.” NYTer James Risen tried mightily to get his paper to run a review of the book—the NYT refused, again and again.
Don’t hold your breath.
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:31 pm 14. Evil Pundit:If they refuse to review your book, just say it’s proof of the blacklisting. Win/win!
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:31 pm 15. Insufficiently Sensitive:What about the New York Times? Never mind that I have loathed the newspaper for the better part of a decade, what will they say about me? Or will they say anything at all?
Hmmm, either they will review or they won’t. As insurance, send a copy to The Economist. Their book reviews are well written, and are honest enough to counter the magazine’s triend toward MSM’s herd mentality.
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:43 pm 16. Mister Snitch!:I sincerely wish you well. On the other hand, your PJ Media sites frequently display an ad showing the NY Times (and other papers) being swept into a dustbin of irrelevance. So, it’s not so much a matter of DO you care (of course you do), but… well, if the Times is irrelevant, as you claim, WHY, exactly, do you care?
This being the season of giving and all, I’ll GIVE you a possible answer. Any assessment of the NY Times should be far more nuanced than PJ Media affiliates (and in particular, Instapundit) give it credit for. The NY Times has the best cultural criticism you’ll find. By comparison, The Wall Street Journal (though not for lack of trying) doesn’t even come close.
On the flip side, if I want to know WHY the economy is imploding, I’ll never figure it out by reading the Times. Never. The paper’s just too conflicted to take a critical look at the subject. (They’re perfectly happy to let you blame Bush if you like – they know better than to come out and say that, but they won’t stop you from the assumption.) I’ll have to read The Economist, The WSJ, or IBD for that kind of insight.
Unfortunately, your book is in that hellish place where it IS, after all, literature (which the Times can parse pretty well) but also politics (about which, the Times cannot get out of its own way). No wonder you’re so conflicted.
But it’s not as if you’re being ignored. And let’s be honest – your main concern now is whether Clint Eastwood will consent to play you in the movie.
Dec 28, 2008 - 12:44 pm 17. George duncan:I can’t promise a review in the NYT. I’m editor of a small paper in Florida and also do reviews for an online publication near Jacksonville. If your publisher sends me a review copy, I can promise a review in those publications (and it will probably be positive) George Duncan, Editor, Lake Placid Journal, 231 N. Main Avenue, Lake Placid, Fla. 33852.
Dec 28, 2008 - 1:15 pm 18. John:Actually, with Sam Tanenhaus as Times Book Review editor, that section has been far less ideologically dogmatic over the past few years than some of the paper’s other sections (I mean, Lord help you if the late John Leonard was still running the Book Review section; not only wouldn’t your book have a chance at a review, but if you’d have to do a confessional of your ideological sins if you ever wanted to visit the Upper West Side of Manhattan again).
Dec 28, 2008 - 1:59 pm 19. DavidN:Roger:
I don’t usually purchase, or read, political books. I find them dated, usually; what I read here is much more current. In your case I may make an exception, but I do have a serious question here: when will Moses Wine be making another appearance? I’ve been missing him…
P.S. I have read (I think) all of your mysteries, and loved them. I even liked the ones with conservative villains, back when you were on the other side.
David
Dec 28, 2008 - 2:52 pm 20. Patrick Carroll:Pity your book’s not a thinly-disguised semim-fiction about an extra-marital affair between a mega-rich politically-connected heiress who wants to be appointed US Senator from New York, and an inbred newspaper magnate with almost zero business sense who promotes her, mostly because he leads with his crotch.
Then, uh, you know, like, there’d be a good, uh, follow-on, you know, uh, story to be, like, milked.
They’d never review it, but baby, millions would buy it.
Dec 28, 2008 - 5:46 pm 21. Pat:The NYT is going to go bankrupt next year. I suspect the editors are busy updating their resumes and finding out how few job openings exist in the rapidly-shrinking world of newspaper journalism, and how many desperate laid-off newspaper people are fighting for them. The NYT folks may not get around to your book at all before their time runs out.
Dec 28, 2008 - 6:03 pm 22. Chris S.:Haven’t checked it out yet, but this “political” book doesn’t seem “dated” to me- it’s not like it’s promoting (A Mormon in the White House?, A Promise of Change) or attacking (The Truth About Hillary, Obamanation) a specific candidate or media figure.
It may be more of a “highbrow”, Francophilic version of David Horowitz’s Left Illusions, but not “dated” . . .
Dec 28, 2008 - 10:43 pm 23. kiwikit:If only the TIMES would publish a list of the books it refuses to review, we’d have a list of those in which we’d be interested!
Dec 29, 2008 - 5:27 am 24. hermie:Roger: I think your desire to have the NYT review your book is based on nostalgia. You are remembering what the NYT USED to be, rather than what it is now, and believing that their review has more weight than anyone else. It has more weight, but only amongst the few liberals who continue to read it, or those who primarily get it for the obits to see if cousin Manny finally died.
Dec 29, 2008 - 6:18 am 25. Don Brockette:Honestly, I’d love the publicity. But then again, I figure most Times readers wouldn’t go for my novels. Such is life.
Dec 29, 2008 - 12:55 pm 26. cfbleachers:Roger, my friend…I will buy and read your book. I will give a copy to everyone I know.
And it will matter not one whit to me, whether the NY Times chooses to march inexorably to its own, slow, rotting death with it under its continuing passive suppression of opposing viewpoints, or if it chooses to pan it… as an active warrior on the battlefield of intolerance and as a coconspirator in the strangulation of opposing worldviews.
The “paper of rancor” has oozed its way under the doorway of post-modern leftist cultism, it has lost its ability to discern facts/events as they are, from facts/events as they need them to be. Truth is an irrelevance. Objectivity, an obscene joke. Journalistic ethics, an oxymoron.
I am old enough to have witnessed certain folks who were rejected, ridiculed, oppressed by the “upper crust” culture “betters”…not allowed into the clubby atmosphere…wanting …even needing…to be “accepted” as worthy to sit in exalted status as “acceptable”. And all the scuffling, bowing, scraping, usually brought nothing more than further contempt and ridicule from on high. The haughty, smug and pedantic rarely see themselves in full flaw.
Its not tan pants, blue blazers and docksiders that sail a boat.
And its not a gray ponytail, faded jeans and flannel shirts that make a book review or an opinion worthy of acceptance.
Your friends and admirers love you, respect you, and honor as well as cherish your work. How much greater could it be than that? And I am among them, if that means anything.
Dec 30, 2008 - 3:56 am 27. cfbleachers:its=it’s, of course.
Dec 30, 2008 - 4:05 am 28. ElMondo:Oh, screw the NYT, Roger. They’re the same rag who convinced me that Eragon was worth reading. If I could sue for time lost due to trusting that ridiculous hagiography of Paolini, I so would.
Dec 30, 2008 - 11:16 am 29. scaramouche:I wouldn’t stress it, Roger. Word is the Grey Lady’s set to go ta-tas up in ‘09.
Dec 30, 2008 - 1:22 pm 30. EricTheRed:Congratulations, Roger. Looking forward to reading about your H’wood escapades. And don’t worry if you get into the crosshairs of the NY Times. Look how popular Salman Rushdie got after writing “Satanic Verses”
Jan 1, 2009 - 6:35 pm 31. g:You know, Roger, I think it’s that the Grey Lady is just not that into you.
You can stop staying in nights by the phone.
Jan 2, 2009 - 8:26 am 32. Tom:You are all very amusing but… the main point is that the NY Times does not EVER review a book unless an advance copy is sent to them for free before publication. Roger is not being picked on because he is a pathetic right-wing loser. He is not getting his book reviewed by the NY Times because only a pathetic right-wing publisher that despises the NY Times would publish his book. If Roger really wanted his book reviewed by the NY Times, he should have tried harder to get a real publisher.
Jan 2, 2009 - 11:23 am 33. Roger L Simon:You have a point there, Tom. But I did try. When the book was submitted, in proposal form, to the redoubtable Alice Mayhew at Simon & Schuster (who had published several of my books), she said she couldn’t understand why anyon would depart liberalism. So I was stuck with Encounter, that “pathetic right-wing publisher” that publishes such pathetic authors as Victor Davis Hanson, Thomas Sowell, Roger Kimball and Andrew McCarthy, among assorted other illiterates.
Jan 2, 2009 - 11:33 am 34. jamooyah:“Think Solzhenitsyn, and you’ll feel a lot happier.”
Yeah, and everyone on the front seat of the bus is Rosa Parks. Get a little perspective, jackass.
Jan 2, 2009 - 12:54 pm 35. Righteous Bubba:After the last eight years that’s like attempting to wash your hands with turds.
Jan 2, 2009 - 1:41 pm 36. EriktheRed:In case you haven’t figured it out yet, Roger, the word “liberal” isn’t quite the bad word it used to be.
J. Goldberg’s laughable attempt at equating the left with the 3rd Reich hasn’t helped and I’m sure that whether the NYT ever gets aroubnd to reviewing it or not, your book won’t have any more effect. You’re a few years too late.
LOL
Jan 4, 2009 - 9:42 pm