Politics in Bookselling
August 30th, 2007 by Therese Walsh
If you’ve been keeping up with the WU Google Notebook updates (of course you have), you’ll already know all about the controversy over Barnes & Noble and their unwillingness to carry on their store shelves I Did it: Confessions of a Killer (the “If” in the title was removed by the Goldman family after winning rights to sell the book). Their argument, from a spokesperson for the store, is that the book won’t sell. Another line is that they “only have a handful of pre-orders in our stores.” However, the book now lies in the TOP FIVE at the superstore’s website. That kind of sales ranking, according to Slate, “places it higher than any other book not yet published, including forthcoming novels by best-selling blockbuster authors James Patterson and John Grisham.”
So what gives? Doesn’t this just smack of one-tone, unbendable politics? Doesn’t it seem as though someone made the decision in Second One NOT to stock the book…because they were disgusted with the idea of it, or because their spouse threatened to lock them out of the bedroom if they did it (no pun intended), or the staff took an informal vote and the decision was made?
It’s happening over at Amazon.com as well. They’re getting flack for stocking books on dogfighting.
Now let me be clear about something: I am not an advocate for dogfighting; I think it’s disgusting and would prefer those books never be made in the first place. And I’m not here to air my views on OJ and the Goldman family and the book that may or may not fit like a glove for some people.
What I’m asking is this: Should a bookseller ever make these kinds of calls? Should they stock or not stock a book that is generally appropriate for the masses (granted, dogfighting is a dark shade of gray) based upon a personal decision and/or value system? Does this seem like…censorship?
What do you think?
I agree that it’s unlikely B&N’s sole criterion was lack of interest.
The slippery slope argument is a bit worn, but no less true for that. If B&N is making these kinds of calls, it’s probably with the best of intentions. It’s easy to agree with a corporate decency standard on an individual book. It’s especially easy to go along when the author seems to be making money from his/her own iniquity. But how many less-publicized judgments does B&N make based on “decency”?
Last year I asked a local B&N store about a romance novel by a large press. The B&N employee said, with a strange awkwardness and nervous giggle, that he couldn’t stock it or even special-order it. I asked why; he said “Uh… I just can’t.” I could be wrong, but that response said “value judgment” to me, and it made a negative impression. Based on that impression, I’d rather spend my money at Borders. (Borders had many copies of the novel, BTW. So what was the issue with B&N?)
I love the idea of corporate America having a conscience!
I’d love to see more of it, and then them stick to it.