Sara Nelson's Comments
Page 1 of 2  first | prev | next 
Aug 6, 2007 | comments: 14
Sara Nelson Aug 6, 2007, 4:34pm EDT
Good Wilde-an reference, Bruce. I saw Keith once. Like Lou Reed, he looks more dead than alive. But alive he is. And kicking, apparently.
Jun 18, 2007 | comments: 27
Sara Nelson Jun 19, 2007, 10:02am EDT
Wow. You all make some interesting points. I do think it's worth re-stating what I hope I said in the piece: that it's not necessarily that women are writing less nonfiction (though I think they might be) but that publishers are publishing less serious narrative nonfiction by women. The former may be a result of internalizing the latter, but yes, of course, if women want to write nonfiction, they should; publishers should and might eventually come to see the value, as I pointed out that they have in the book Women: A Celebration of STrength

And yes, I agree that it's unfortunate that we're still analyzing by gender at this late date, but the world still does that. Look at polls about the upcoming election: there's endless discussion of the "woman factor" when it comes to Hillary Clinton, for example.
May 14, 2007 | comments: 24
Sara Nelson May 15, 2007, 11:57am EDT
Wow, this really struck a nerve! Yes, I agree with just about all of you. Newspaper readers are book readers, and in a way, that's the problem: there are fewer "young" people reading newspapers, just as there are fewer "young" people reading books. "Kids" today get their info in completely different ways, and that's why book publishers are thinking about, and should be, going online with their products, though it has yet to be proven if people who cruise the Web (not places like Gather, of course) also buy books.
Apr 30, 2007 | comments: 20
Sara Nelson May 1, 2007, 3:07pm EDT
Well, Debra, our reviews are actually intended for booksellers and librarians, not the supposed "end user" We're trying to let people know what they should order/buy for their stores and libraries. Thus, we have to be heavy on plot line, so that buyers know what they're getting, where to put it on their shelves, whether the material will appeal/offend their customers, etc. By the time we've done all that, there's not a lot of room left for heavy criticism: it's more a "Buy, Don't Buy" kind of kicker.
Apr 30, 2007 | comments: 20
Sara Nelson May 1, 2007, 11:27am EDT
It was the London Book Fair, which is primarily a rights fair for new books, held in March or April every year. The Antiquarian Book Fair sounds interesting, though.
Apr 23, 2007 | comments: 14
Sara Nelson Apr 23, 2007, 10:20am EDT
Right, but the problem is that you don't really "like" Imus or Oprah or any celebrity endorser because you don't really know them. You like their image, what they work hard to project. . .so if one of them falters, and/or shows his "true self" many fans are brought up short, particularly if they thought they "knew" them.
Apr 16, 2007 | comments: 16
Sara Nelson Apr 17, 2007, 2:48am EDT
I tend to read paperbacks too -- either in reprint, or in the Advanced Reader Copy that publishers send to reviewers in advance of publication. I prefer them, too: more portable, easier to read, lighter to carry. But I agree that there's still a stigma in people's minds, that straight to paper means somehow lesser than hardcover. That perception is changing a bit, especially as publishers recognize the importance of the 20something market, which has much less disposable income, or at least disposable income they're likely to spend on books.
Apr 9, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Apr 12, 2007, 3:50pm EDT
Well, I stand behind the idea that there is literary snobbery, and that it scares people off reading. I think if people didn't feel they had to declare themselves "serious" or otherwise they would read more widely and enjoy themselves. And if enjoying yourself is not one of the reasons you read -- the others being to enlighten, to learn, to fill the time, whatever -- , I'm sorry for you
Apr 9, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Apr 11, 2007, 12:58pm EDT
Wow, Trexler, that is SO not what I said. I merely suggested that it's ok to like non serious literature, and that reviewers who are not so much critics as commentators on what they liked and disliked, are worth paying attention to. You seem to be very angry about something.
Apr 9, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Apr 10, 2007, 5:24pm EDT
I think the snobbery that we all still have around reading is really bad, for us, and for the book business. There are certain kinds of "junk" I really like, and lots of high lit that I find impenetrable and boring. Nobody likes to say that, people are afraid they'll get labeled, and maybe they will. But I don't care. . .
Mar 26, 2007 | comments: 16
Sara Nelson Apr 2, 2007, 10:26am EDT
If even my almost 89 year old mother can get email and read some things on the Web (with glasses, but still) you know the world has changed. The Web and web promotion is the bus we're all on, like or not, so enjoy the ride.
Mar 19, 2007 | comments: 18
Sara Nelson Mar 20, 2007, 12:40pm EDT
Sorry, all. . .I've been so busy thinking about how badly I want to be twenty pounds thinner and have a BMW that I haven't had time to post. Ha. I agree with what you've all said -- it is a bandwagon, and a refurbished old bandwagon at that, and it is too bad that publishing has to jump on it. This is a brilliant packaging success, but as many of you have said or implied, it's not about writing, or even about new ideas. . .On the one hand, I have to applaud the "author" for figuring out how to get to so many people, how to give them what they want. . .on the other, of course, it is infuriating that so many good and original ideas go unpublished or unread. Still, there are great books out there that don't follow any formula: it's just that so much attention is paid to ones like the Secret that many of us don't get a chance to learn about the others.
Mar 12, 2007 | comments: 14
Sara Nelson Mar 12, 2007, 1:56pm EDT
Thanks. There is a lot of smoke and mirrors in publishing -- perception management, I call it -- but there are also a lot of real editors and real writers just trying to do their best work. The problem with the fuzzy math stuff is that it demeans the actual work that is done. If we just were up front about what sold and what didn't, I don't think that would change what we write and publish. . .but it would put the conversation on a whole other level
Mar 5, 2007 | comments: 13
Sara Nelson Mar 5, 2007, 1:27pm EST
Exactly. (Except you and me, of course)
Feb 26, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Feb 27, 2007, 2:04pm EST
Well, I'm with you, Jeff, on wanting more literary fiction and "smaller" titles. I'm not a mystery buff myself (not that there's anything wrong with that. . . ) and am often disappointed with the big-sellers. Still, there are a lot of great, small books being published that we just don't hear about very much. PW reviews some of them, and smart bookstores put them where readers can find them. I think the problem is not so much that there aren't good literary novels being published, but that the noise made for them is much more muted than the noise made for the blockbusters.
Feb 26, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Feb 27, 2007, 11:15am EST
True, but in fact, The Historian was considered a success, because it sold so well in its first weeks -- thanks to a big publicity push -- that it made back a lot of the money the publisher spent. There were also a lot of foreign sales -- a Taiwanese publisher told me he's sold 50,000 copies in that small market -- so some real money was made there, too.
Feb 26, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Feb 26, 2007, 6:02pm EST
Well, you'd think so -- that publishers would spend the most money promoting the big books. And generally, they do -- that's why Michael Crichton's 475th novel still gets more attention than a brilliant midlist debut. But that theory can fall apart, too. I can't tell you the number of writers I know who think that because they get 100K for an advance that the publisher is going to promote the book accordingly. SOmetimes the book comes in late, the editor has left or, sadly, it isn't quite as good as they had hoped it would be and then the philsophy becomes "Why throw good money after bad?" It's tricky, and I don't envy editors; they're under a lot of pressure from the corporate overlords, too. But I do think cutting out the little guy is NOT the way to go
Feb 26, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Feb 26, 2007, 1:17pm EST
I do have to say, though, that Jonathan Safran Foer's "little brother" -- while I called him that in my story -- is also a brilliant Ivy league grad (I forget which school) who is supposedly brilliant and funny and interesting. I don't mean to rag on the Foer family, but just to make the point that connections and big names don't hurt when it comes to getting good advances.
Feb 26, 2007 | comments: 17
Sara Nelson Feb 26, 2007, 1:15pm EST
Well, that's exactly the problem, Paul. With so much focus on "front list" (new books) and "opening" them the way Hollywood opens a movie, it's the midlist writer who gets squeezed. I wish publishers would cut their lists, but that they'd cut the big bloated advance "blockbusters" first.
Feb 19, 2007 | comments: 12
Sara Nelson Feb 20, 2007, 11:31am EST
As for which is the better book, it's hard to say. Eggers has done a wonderful job turning an as told to memoir into a fully realized novel. But Beah's book is also terrific, partly because it is very stripped down (his choice, and that of his editor, Sarah Crichton) so that the horrors are presented to matter of factly as to not seem sensationalistic. Also, there's so much sweetness in him; the teenage boy that he was really comes through. As to how they'll do, I'd expect that they'll both do well. As you say, Eggers is already a "name" but Beah is making quite an impact; he's as terrific a speaker and personality as he is a writer. I'd like to see them both sell big.
Page 1 of 2  first | prev | next 
 
Sara Nelson
New York
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.