Hasta La Gadget!

This week, the Big Five just got bigger with the announcement that Hachette Book Group (the fourth largest U.S. publisher) is acquiring Perseus Books Group (the sixth largest U.S. publisher) in a deal that will close next month.

In the world of book publishing, the new millennium seems to have ushered in an era of acquisitions and mergers. Recent notable acquisitions have been Random House’s (parent company Bertelsmann) acquisition of Penguin, and HarperCollins’s acquisition of Thomas-Nelson and Harlequin. Perseus has nine imprints — Avalon Travel, Basic Books, Basic Civitas, Da Capo Press, Da Capo Lifelong Books, PublicAffairs, Running Press, Seal Press, and Westview Press — and a backlist of over 6,000 titles. At the same time, Perseus is selling its distribution business to Ingram. (For insiders, this is a bit ironic, since Perseus owns Publishers Group West, a company that paved the path for Ingram’s current distribution model.)

But what does this acquisition means for writers — especially the aspiring as-yet-unpublished writers, or authors who’ve previously published traditionally and question whether or not they’ll be able to get a traditional deal for their next book? I’m going to suggest that it might not be what you think — because big publishing getting bigger is not winning the industry any popularity points among readers, writers, or authors.

I was working for Avalon Publishing (at Seal Press) in 2007 when Perseus bought the company and its seven imprints: Avalon Travel Publishing, Carroll & Graf Publishers, Marlowe & Company, Nation Books, Seal Press, Shoemaker & Hoard, and Thunder’s Mouth Press. That Seal survived was testament to its status as an indie darling. Perseus closed and/or folded all of the other imprints except Avalon Travel. Shoemaker & Hoard became Counterpoint (negotiated in the sale of the company by Counterpoint’s Charlie Winton and Jack Shoemaker); Carroll & Graf and Thunder’s Mouth were shut down; Nation became part of Public Affairs; and Marlowe & Company became part of Da Capo. I think we can anticipate a similar kind of folding with the Hachette acquisition, though how everything gets sliced and diced will play out over the next year or so.

When Perseus acquired Seal and Avalon’s other imprints, one of my authors, the magnetic Susie Bright, said something memorable to me: “This will be death by one thousand cuts.” It felt foreboding, and while it wasn’t that dire — Seal didn’t die — those cuts she predicted did erode me over time. We weren’t indie anymore. We were BIG publishing. Perseus was (is) the sixth-biggest publisher in the U.S. and the expectation for me, the sole Executive Editor at the time, was to acquire BIG books. That was the mandate, literally.

No longer could I acquire a project just because I loved it, or because the work needed to be published — which was part of Seal’s original mission. Where we had once regularly acquired fantastic books that would be steady backlist sellers for advances in the $5K-$10K range, suddenly our floor was $20K, and we could stretch much higher than that. Our profile in the industry was better, and agents were sending us more projects. We stopped looking at the slush pile, and authors who might have had a fighting chance with us in 2004 when I first started wouldn’t be given a cursory glance anymore.

It was sort of exciting to have this bigger profile, but what I lost was something much bigger. I lost a certain connection, a finger-on-the-pulse-of-what’s-happening (or about to happen) energy that I thrived on as an up-and-coming editor. I was no longer going to conferences to entertain pitches from hopeful writers, or scouring cool blogs to “discover” a new writer who might not have had her eye on writing a book just yet. All of a sudden I was only — could only — rely on agents, because in publishing the definition of a “BIG” book starts with the fact that an author has already been vetted by an agent. I missed the chase, the courting, the developing of projects and working closely one-on-one with my authors. I became an acquisitions machine, focused on buying turnkey projects. And under this paradigm I acquired A LOT of books.

This hustle, however, ultimately forced me out of big publishing. It stopped being fun. It became all about quota. As much as I loved the books I acquired, I didn’t feel as connected to the projects or the authors as I had when we were indie. The irony was that authors getting paid bigger advance dollars often meant they were more entitled. Seal’s reputation as a bigger publisher meant that agents played hardball. Being in the major leagues was not nearly as fun or spirited or risky or soulful as being independent. And so I left, and in 2012 I co-founded She Writes Press with She Writes founder Kamy Wicoff, in part to recapture some of that spark that had fueled me in my early days in publishing, and especially in my early days at Seal Press.

The consolidation of publishing is, perhaps, death by one thousand cuts, but the suffering that’s happening in the industry is actually making room for a new paradigm of independent publishing to take hold. Sometimes it takes being cut to the core in order for new life to emerge. In this case it’s just unfortunate that the publishing industry is creating its own demise. Big publishing has failed to realize the power of allegiance, of belonging, of community. As they grow, they seem more and more patriarchal. The barriers to entry are already ridiculously high, and the measure for what “deserves” to get published is based on marketing and branding star power, resulting in more culturally and intellectually vapid books being published on imprints whose names used to evoke feelings of reverence.

Authors have less of a say, less involvement. In some cases they’re not even informed about what’s happening with their own books. Big publishing is not fostering an environment that authors want to be a part of, and they’re oftentimes turning elsewhere, more and more often abandoning even the notion that they might traditionally publish. And I think this will be the wave of the future. Whereas self-publishing used to be a last resort, it’s often a first choice today. Hybrid presses like She Writes Press and others like us are developing new models that give authors their ownership back, and offer true partnership and co-creation. This is empowering.

So authors, take heart. Yes, publishers are swallowing each other whole, and it’s messy and sometimes really sad. But the fact that walls are getting higher and doors harder than ever to pry open doesn’t have to be daunting where it comes to your choices for getting your book out in the world. We’re lucky because we have options. We can green-light ourselves. Interestingly, the public response to what’s happening in big publishing is democratization, somehow pushing us back to what publishing was always supposed to be–a means to get our messages and stories out and into the hands of readers without a gatekeeper to tell us whether or not we can.

One year ago today, in two historic decisions, the Supreme Court struck down the heart of the so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” in Windsor v. United States and upheld a lower court decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, striking down Proposition 8 and bringing marriage equality back to California. In an instant, the world changed forever.

Like many people, I will never forget that day for as long as I live.

Each day that week, I and hundreds of other marriage equality supporters went to the steps of the Supreme Court, hoping to be there when the rulings were announced. But nothing came on Monday or Tuesday, so we knew that the decisions in the DOMA and Prop. 8 cases would come down on the last day of the term: Wednesday, June 26.

On Tuesday, as I reflected on the magnitude of what was about to take place, I realized that no matter how the Supreme Court ruled the next day, there was only one person I wanted by my side in that historic moment: my beloved husband Michael, with whom I’d been working for marriage equality on the state and national levels for the entire seven years of our own marriage. I asked him if he’d come down to the Court with me, and even though he was nervous about asking for time off at a job he’d just started, he said yes.

On the morning of Decision Day, we grabbed our “Married With Pride” sign — which we made back in 2008 for two rallies we helped organize in Wisconsin to protest the passage of Proposition 8 — and headed down to the Supreme Court. I also grabbed my camera, thinking that I’d want to document the occasion.

Just before 10 o’clock, a hush came over the massive crowd and the smartphones came out. All of us, demonstrators and reporters alike, now began frantically checking and refreshing SCOTUSblog, which we knew would be the quickest way of finding out what had happened.

Suddenly the news flashed across my screen: Section 3 of DOMA, an unjust law and the source of daily heartbreak and humiliation for same-sex couples across the country, was no more. For a split second, I couldn’t speak — I just gasped, looked up to the sky, and closed my eyes. I didn’t even need to speak; Michael knew from the look on my face exactly what had happened.

But then I found the words: “DOMA. It’s gone. Unconstitutional.“

As those words left my lips, the overwhelming magnitude of what was happening washed over me. For the first time in seven years of marriage, our country was saying to us, and thousands of married couples just like us — I see you. I affirm you. The United States no longer viewed us as strangers, but as spouses.

Michael and I felt amazement and disbelief and gratitude and relief, all at once. We burst into sobs and just held and kissed each other. Everything else fell away in that incredible moment: the crowd, the oppressive summer heat, the crush of reporters and the clicking of cameras. It felt, as Michael would later say, like a second wedding day. (Little did we know then that the DOMA ruling would set off a tsunami of freedom-to-marry court rulings across the country and allow thousands more couples to have their first wedding day!)

The one thing I forgot to do that morning — the one thing that ended up being furthest from my mind, in fact — was to take pictures. I never even took my camera out of its case; it sat between my feet the entire time. But as fate would have it, I didn’t need to: photographers captured our reaction to the rulings, and soon images of our intimate moments of joy were being shared with people all over the world, in outlets like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, BBC and CNN. Friends in Canada, Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands and even as far away as Thailand and China saw our sobbing faces on their phones, televisions and computer screens. And the next day, photos of us appeared on the front pages of at least 70 newspapers in the U.S. and Canada — including my hometown newspaper, the Green Bay Press-Gazette — and inside dozens of others.

It was both surreal and humbling to see those photos, which captured the way so many of us felt on that Decision Day, go viral and become iconic images. Our hope — then and now — is that they speak to people and help them find room in their hearts to embrace the freedom to marry. If even one mind is changed about marriage equality, if even one heart is opened as a result of seeing our sweaty, joyful faces, it’ll all have been worthwhile.

Those are my memories from DOMA/Prop. 8 Decision Day 2013, one year ago today. Please share your own memories in the comments section.

Where were you when the world changed?

The NBA Draft is tonight and by now we’ve all heard and read about the top picks ad nauseum. But what about that next tier of prospects — the dudes that won’t hear their names called until Adam Silver hits double-digits?

I sat down with one such dude, Adreian Payne, a few days before the draft in the Blackberry Suite in NYC. We talked about his game, what he expects on the big night and the people that have helped him make it to Barclays Center. Here’s an edited transcript of our conversation:

Zach Wasser: What’s the experience been like for you leading up to the NBA draft?

Adreian Payne: I would say it’s been a hell of an experience. You know, being able to fly city to city and have an opportunity to work out for teams. And just knowing that you are very close to making your dream a reality.

ZW: And how do you see yourself standing out in the NBA and having that staying power?

AP: I see myself being able to stay in the league just like anybody really that’s fortunate to make it this far: you work on your game and get better. I just think that if you continue to work on your game and get better you’ll be able to stay in the league.

ZW: The versatility of your game, especially on the offensive end, I feel like it’s going to be hugely important for whatever team drafts you, but what aspect of your game do you think needs the most work though?

AP: I would say my ball handling maybe. Yeah, I would say that because you know I really don’t handle the ball that much. In full court situations or bringing the ball up, I need to work on just seeing the game at a different angle. I’m used to seeing the court not bringing the ball up just running down, you know, getting it and playing and if the ball happen to come to me then I score the ball. I would say definitely bringing the ball up and taking somebody off the dribble, you know dribble pull up or something like that.

ZW: Do you see yourself more as a stretch four or do you see yourself also working in that post game?

AP: Yeah, I definitely see myself in and outside the post. I like playing in the post and I like playing outside. I get excited making both types of plays and it’s just part of the game I try to work on every year. Just try to expand my game to something new.

ZW: Nice. And you said before that you worked out for the Bull’s today?

AP: Yesterday I worked out for the Bulls.

ZW: Yesterday, OK.

AP: I had a great workout, did good and I feel good about it.

ZW: Requisite NBA Draft question: do you have a preference which team you end up on?

AP: No, I don’t have a preference, you know, I just want to get drafted to play in the NBA

ZW: Yeah, I figured. On a more technical level, when you catch the ball on the low post, what are you thinking? How do you read the defense?

AP: First of all when I first catch it I try to wait because I’m thinking I’m going to get double-teamed. So, you know, I used to have a tendency to just catch it and go and I used to get into some trouble and turn the ball over. So now I try to catch it, gather myself, see what the defense gives me and then I would go straight into a jump shot and jump hook depending on what block I’m on. If I’m on the right, right hand jump hook; left [block], left hand jump hook. So sometimes that doesn’t work so I do an open drop and I normally do a stick shot instead of a drop step into a hook shot. You know just read the defense.

ZW: Right. And how do you determine when you want to face up as opposed to backing your man down?

AP: I would face up on much bigger guys. Especially if they pushed me off the post or if I caught the ball off the block, I would face up and try to see what the defense gives me. If it’s somebody my size, I would back them down.

ZW: You’re in kind of an interesting position because a few pieces have to fall in certain places and then your name is up. What’s that experience been like? And do you feel like someone in the top ten could jump up and grab you or are you waiting for the picks 10 through 20 something?

AP: Not sure, you know, it’s a crazy draft.

ZW: Can’t really control it.

AP: Yeah, I don’t have no control. I feel like I did good in all my workouts and I worked out good, so you know, it’s not in my hands no more.

ZW: And in your personal life, you’ve overcome a lot and you have succeed and thrived. Where does that strength come from?

AP: I’d definitely say my grandmother. She was strong willed and I learned from her and it’s just been in me since I been a little boy. Just never giving up and trying to be the best I can be.

ZW: That’s the reason you improved your game every year you were at Michigan State — that drive to be the best?

AP: Right, right.

ZW: And finally, is there anybody else in your draft class that you’ve been talking to or that you’ve gotten close with?

AP: Yeah, I talk to Nik Stauskas from Priority and everybody in Priority [Priority Sports is the management firm that represents Adreian]. But outside that, just Gary Harris [Michigan State teammate also projected to be a top pick in the draft]. We really talk a lot. And I talk to the guys back at Michigan State, just to tell them what to look forward to whenever they enter this process and try to help them out the best way I can.

For me, it began in June of 1956, when I began working for United Press and its news film company, Unite Press/Movietone News. Early in 1956, President Eisenhower had sent out the Secretary of the Navy, Robert B. Anderson, to talk with General Nasser about a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. Nasser said no. At the same time, Nasser was attempting to decrease British aims in the Middle East and French Premier Guy Mollet declared, “Nasser has the ambition to recreate the conquests of Islam.”

On July 30, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal, and for the rest of that year I was watching our newsreel film recording the British/French/Israeli attack on Egypt while the United States and Russia were doing their best to impede the British/French attempt to seize the canal.

According to Wikipedia, the English Prime Minister Anthony Eden, “decided in favor of military invention against Egypt to avoid the complete collapse of British prestige in the region.” Mollet was equally hostile and compared the seizure of the Suez with Hitler’s Mein Kampf. The Israelis were also eager for war, hoping to drive the Egyptians out of the Sinai Peninsula. The US refused to join the trio.

The Brits and French spent most of the summer preparing for a fall invasion, while the Israelis were drawing up their own war plan. By the end of October, all three nations were ready to act. The Israelis moving first crossed into the Sinai, fighting various Egyptian defenders all along the borderline. Their Air Force caused great damage to Egyptian forces in both airplanes and manpower. By the 5th of November, the Israelis had taken control of Sharm el-Sheikh, the Gaza Strip, and most of the Sinai desert.

The Brits and the French began their war with an attack on Port Said on the 5th of November. By the next day they had taken control of the city. They seemed on the brink of victory.

Such was not to be the case. Neither the United States nor Russia wanted to be seen as enemies in the Arab world. Neither side was ready to send troops to defend Nasser, but France, England and even Israel were financially vulnerable. US Secretary of State Dulles and his brother, Allen, made it known that they were prepared to dump pounds and francs into the markets until both currencies lost their value. Nikita Khrushchev made similar threats from Moscow and threatened nuclear attacks on both France and England.

Faced with those threats, the British and the French agreed to withdraw from Egypt before the end of the year while the Israelis remained in Sinai until March of 1957.

The United States had effectively castrated its two firmest allies, Great Britain and France, and let them know that they no longer had the power to take military actions without authorization from Washington.

(Just to prove the truth of an old axiom, when we invaded Iraq in 2003, the British joined with us in the venture proving that the English “forgive but never forget” while the French, who didn’t join us, showed once again that they “forget but never forgive.”)

The Israelis got their revenge in The Six Day War of 1967, when they destroyed the Egyptian Air Force and then rolled all the way through the Sinai to the Suez Canal. They also took the Golan Heights from Syria. This time no one from the US or the USSR got involved, but both countries’ reputations were damaged throughout the Arab world.

President Jimmy Carter soothed some of the Egyptian concerns by arranging the Sadat-Begin Treaty, which restored the Sinai to Egyptian control. But then he failed to interfere with the return of the Ayatollah to Iran, an error by which we are still victimized. Carter’s lapse was the third step in the loss of US influence in the Middle East, and I hope next week to be able to write what we’ve done wrong in parts 2 and 3. This will include additional mention of Robert B. Anderson.

Many Presbyterians jubilantly proclaimed that the Holy Spirit had unquestionably descended upon the Presbyterian Church USA’s 221st General Assembly when commissioners voted to amend the definition of “marriage” in the Book of Order, the PCUSA’s constitution, from a union of “a man and a woman” to a union of “two people,” with an overwhelming 61 percent of commissioners in favor for the amendment and 39 percent in opposition to it (out of 565 commissioners total). The Holy Spirit took a long time coming (if indeed her absence is to blame for the church’s heretofore recalcitrant attitude toward its lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer, or LGBTQ, brethren), but it’s the only way that the vote affirming and blessing the loving coupling of same-sex Presbyterians could have happened.

This recent vote is a welcoming change of heart from the church’s 1991 and 2008 rulings prohibiting Presbyterian clergy from performing same-sex marriages. When some clergy performed same-sex marriages anyway, the church’s retribution was both draconian and antithetical to any cleric’s sense of fairness and justice. For their commitment to their values, these brave ministers — straight and gay alike — endured ecclesiastical trials as the church considered four possible censures: rebuke, rebuke with rehabilitation, temporary removal from the church, or permanent removal from church office, meaning defrocking.

While homophobia is nothing new in the hallowed halls of most churches, in many ways the Presbyterian Church USA, born out of a liberal Protestant Christian tradition, descending from the branch of the Protestant Reformation begun by John Calvin, had been an embarrassment to itself. For more than three decades the PCUSA had been engaging more in holy war than in spiritual discernment over the issue. And after the recent vote to amend the Book of Order to recognize same-sex marriage, some Presbyterians are digging their heels even deeper into either the church’s old ways or their own interpretation of God’s opinion on the matter.

“My heart breaks,” the Rev. Steve Wilkins of the New Harmony Presbytery in South Carolina shared with The New York Times during the debate. “I don’t think it’s up to us to change the definition of marriage; in fact marriage has been defined by us and revealed to us in God’s word.”

Sadly, Wilkins is not the only voice crying out against the church’s recent vote. So are many Christians across denominational lines.

Rev. Jeff S. Nelson, a gay ordained minister in the Unitarian Universalist Church and a former Seventh Day Adventist, had concerns about how to console and counsel his former minister and Pathfinders scoutmaster. (Pathfinders is the scouting program for Seventh Day Adventist boys and girls.) In a text exchange with me, he shared his thoughts:

Rev. Nelson: Morning Irene – So whatcha think of those Presbyterians?! 😀

Me: A long time coming with so many of my colleagues defrocked along the way.

Rev. Nelson: Perhaps some truth and reconciliation can restore Justice… Methodists next?

Me: Let’s pray they follow indeed.

Rev. Nelson: Amen… Right now I’m trying to figure out how to witness to an old Pathfinder counselor who is “saddened” by the news. It is painful to hear loved ones tainted by fear… And I must be careful how I choose my words…

Rev. Nelson: Umph.. Good luck!

In 2011 many Presbyterians were indignant when commissioners at the General Assembly voted in favor of ordaining non-celibate LGBTQ ministers, which resulted in breakaway churches.

It is the church’s governing body that calls the shots. And it’s the governing body that has held both civil-union and marriage-equality states — even queer-friendly Massachusetts — hostage to their Directory for Worship in the Book of Order, impeding 9,777 church officers from faithfully serving all God’s children.

The advocacy group More Light Presbyterians gives us hope. It is a coalition of congregations and individuals in the Presbyterian Church USA who are committed to increasing the involvement of all people in the church, regardless of sexuality. Their mission is to achieve the full participation of LGBTQ people of faith in the life, ministry, and witness of the church. They were instrumental in successfully lobbying for the vote to allow same-sex marriage at the latest General Assembly.

But before the Presbyterian Church USA gives itself congratulatory pats on the back, let’s remember that the amendment will only become church law if it’s approved by a majority of the 173 presbyteries. The church may proudly identify as “reformed and always reforming,” but let’s hope that the Holy Spirit shows up again to help it along.