Showing posts with label publishers weekly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label publishers weekly. Show all posts

Tuesday, September 04, 2012

Publishers Weekly Interviews Andrew Rosenheim on FEAR ITSELF

Last week Andrew Rosenheim's new WWII political thriller FEAR ITSELF received a starred review from Publishers Weekly, who called it a "top-notch historical thriller" and an "intelligent page-turner." This week PW sat down with Rosenheim to talk about the background behind the book and to discuss the real life American history that inspired the story.

While America Slept: PW Talks with Andrew Rosenheim
By Lenny Picker

 
An FBI agent goes undercover inside the German-American Bund in Andrew Rosenheim’s Fear Itself, the first in a new historical series. 

How did you come to write this book?

It came out of an interest in the under-recognized Germanness of so much of American society; also a “what if” interest about what would have happened had FDR not run for a third term. And spurred by some disapproving English views of America’s comparatively late entry into World War II (I’ve lived in England for about 30 years and so have encountered that sentiment), from my own curiosity about what did take us so long.

And what did?

Much of public opinion was adamantly opposed to entering the war. This had only partly changed after Germany marched through western Europe in the spring of 1940. This isolationist sentiment meant Congress was a very real impediment to FDR’s efforts to engineer an American entry into the conflict. Even FDR, during the campaign of 1940, felt obliged to vow that he would not send young American men to fight in a foreign war.

What led him to consider a third term?

FDR felt he alone could steer America toward war—or least provide effective aid for a beleaguered Britain. He didn’t really decide to run until spring 1940, and did so reluctantly. He knew he wasn’t well; he was deeply fatigued after eight years trying to bring America out of the Depression; and he respected the convention that two terms was enough for any president. But he felt obliged to run, and we should all be glad he did. FDR’s simple courage in wanting to support England and to combat fascism isn’t recognized enough.

Do you see any commonalities between U.S. isolationism at the time and the current reluctance to get involved internationally?

A similar distrust of foreign conflicts in faraway lands, though current skepticism seems more justified, given our recent experience in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is a similar insularity, a similar feeling that the rest of the world can go hang—though this seems rather less justified in today’s very global economy and geopolitics. 

Did the book change from its original conception?

The German-American Bund plays a smaller role in the plot that ultimately emerged. The Bund was certainly extremist and ardently pro-Nazi, but it was also largely ineffectual and had withered as a potent political force by 1940. Interestingly, most Bund members were recent arrivals from Germany. German-Americans who had arrived earlier (the vast majority) were never very keen on Hitler, though they were reluctant to see their new country fight their old one.

Friday, May 04, 2012

THE FOREVER MARRIAGE by Ann Bauer Arrives



We have been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Ann Bauer's upcoming novel THE FOREVER MARRIAGE in our office.  The compelling and irreverent story about an unfaithful widow coming to terms with the death of a husband she never really loved sparked stellar early reviews, and has media and bloggers clamoring to get their hands on a copy.
In a starred review, Publishers Weekly has said, "With lovely prose and fine pacing, Bauer offers a sensitive portrait of a flawed woman coming to terms with a lifetime of regrets," while Library Journal praises the fierce character, Carmen, "Bauer deftly draws all the characters. Love or hate Carmen, readers won’t soon forget the hot-blooded woman, and fans of Elizabeth Berg will want to meet her."
Lucky for us, a shipment of finished copies just landed in our office; lucky for you, Ann Bauer has written a fascinating piece on her blog about the journey involved in finding a home for the book when it was just a wee manuscript. We're so happy it landed on our doorstep (in both the figurative and literal sense.)
Stay tuned for chances to win a copy of your own.  In the meantime, you can read more about Ann Bauer and THE FOREVER MARRIAGE releasing this summer, on June 14, by visiting her website and blog, or by following her on Twitter, Facebook, and Goodreads.
...
IN PRAISE OF FLAWED WOMEN
Have I ever mentioned how many rejections The Forever Marriage received?
I’d like to give you a number but, frankly, I lost count. It was more than a year’s worth anyway. And they came from all quarters—editors who knew me and those who did not, big New York publishing giants and respected mid-size literary houses and tiny presses on the prairie.
The editor who had acquired my first novel, given me a generous advance and told me—even after she moved to a different publisher—that she intended to build my career turned it down flat. Her former assistant, the rising star who’d helped shape Wild Ride and asked for an exclusive read on whatever I produced next, also passed. Little was said except for a few words about how unsympathetic women don’t sell.
To be fair, it is true that my manuscript (now forthcoming novel) starts, page one, with a woman rejoicing as she watches her husband die. And many’s the early reader who handed my pages back to me with the note, “I don’t like her!” or something to that effect.
It is also true that after those first two stunning rejections (I’d been positive one of them would want the book), I went back and softened a couple details. I made my protagonist, Carmen, a little less sharp and judgmental. But just a little. The whole story was based, after all, on the premise that she was stuck in a loveless marriage and would be freed only by her husband’s death.
The manuscript went back out. This was now mid-2010. And my agent, Esmond, who’s brilliant, by the way, went rogue. He sent it to a mix of well-known women’s fiction editors and houses that favor quirky, dark, scientific stuff. He chose a couple real outliers, including one publisher so remote he had to print out and mailthe manuscript—I mean in an envelope, with stamps and everything—as if it were 1979.
That’s when the rejections flooded in. I suspect Esmond kept the less constructive letters back. But he sent the nice ones in batches. And it was like reading one message in many different tones—the way announcements are made in a series of languages aboard international ships.
“I’m grateful to have read Ann Bauer’s accomplished novel though I am sorry to say it isn’t for me,” wrote one. “I found myself wishing her protagonist were more sympathetic, making me the wrong editor for it.”
“I’m afraid that while I appreciate the honesty Bauer brings to her characters, I found it quite difficult to sympathize with Carmen,” said another, “especially as we spend much of the book certain that she never loved Jobe.”
They continued this way, small variations on a theme.
The nicest rejection, the one from a very busy, well-known editor who was kind enough to write a long, personal note, read in part:
This is a novel with a really complex and interesting set-up and I really wanted to fall in love with it. The opening pages were so difficult to read because Carmen is so hugely difficult to relate to  — a woman who is, on some level relieved that her husband has died. And yet, very real too. And believable. So I read with interest. I am sorry to say (but may be a good thing) that I had a very visceral reaction to the novel. I really didn’t like Carmen. I kept hoping I would because she seemed like the kind of woman I SHOULD be liking!
Ann  Bauer is a superb writer. I know this is a weird pass letter but there you have it.
Esmond and I talked about Olive Kitteridge, which had won the 2009 Pulitzer with its prickly eponymous main character. We talked about the work of Lionel Shriver (pictured), whose masterpiece We Need To Talk About Kevin, is about a woman—the mother of a killer—who admits boldly to never loving her son; Kevin was famously rejected more than 30 times before it went on to be published, win the Orange Prize, and become a Cannes-feted film.
“I plan on another submission next week,” Esmond wrote. “Don’t worry. I think we’ll find a home for Jobe.”
But I did worry. I worried about my book. I also worried about myself.
Carmen is a fictional character and her situation is not mine. But her observations and irritable moments and less-than-generous impulses? Many of those are. When as a 20-year-old girl she encourages an awkward young man to buy her nice things…When she lies to him after they’re engaged and takes up with a smooth, sexy stranger…When as a 43-year-old with cancer she envies her own daughter’s youth and health…These are ugly deeds and thoughts I can easily imagine. They seem logical to me. Flawed but human.
I was surprised to find that other women my age did not feel the same.
Because oddly, the negative responses came entirely from females under 50 (which describes the majority of fiction editors). Men and older women tended to read my novel and cheer for Carmen. They didn’t necessarily like her, but they understood her. They rooted for her to become a better, gentler person—which eventually, in her own way, I really believe she does.
During the long year that The Forever Marriage was circulating, I sought out portraits of imperfect but redeemable women. I read Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom and Mary Karr’s Lit. I watched The Good Wife on TV. But once again, it was Lionel Shriver who provided the best insight.
Shriver’s ninth novel, So Much For That, features a shrewish woman named Glynis who is diagnosed with mesothelioma (a rare form of lung cancer) and uses her disease to wreck her husband’s dreams. Glynis is lazy and complaining and a flailer; when she discovers that her own mistakes triggered the cancer, she turns around and blames everyone else, including her husband, Shep. Even so, there are glimmers of goodness, moments when Glynis breaks down and you understand why her beleaguered husband has remained.
Late in the book, an old friend appears who has pledged all along to help: to make meals, to nurse Glynis, to move in if needed. But each promise was empty; after every one, the woman disappeared. As Glynis lies dying, the two women finally hash it out. The bitter one in the bed and the selfish fink of a friend—who, it turns out, was really Shriver herself.
In a column for The Guardian entitled, How I Failed My Best Friend, she told the story of her longtime friend, Terri, who was discovered to have mesothelioma right around the time Kevin was scaling bestseller charts. Shriver details, almost coldly, how she promised over and over to fly home and visit, only to get caught up in all the excitement around her suddenly successful novel and dodge her dying friend’s calls.
My first response when I read this piece was, “What a bitch!” My second was: “Yeah, I can see that.”
For me, the lag was maybe 3 minutes. I swore to myself I would never buy another Shriver novel, would NEVER PUT ANOTHER DIME IN THAT WOMAN’S POCKET, then quickly admitted that while I hoped I’d do better, I could not say with certainty how I would behave if faced with smashing, outrageous writing success and the pull of a dying friend.
Shriver was wrong and she knows it. She reaped all the benefits of Kevin, plus she wrote another hugely popular book about the very friend she ditched! I’m not endorsing her choices, but I do love the fact that she was honest about them. Because I think that’s where most of us struggle and fail.
As Esmond promised, my novel about an unfaithful wife was eventually picked up by an editor who loved and championed my imperfect heroine. And yesterday, my first pre-publication review came out in Publishers Weekly. It was smart and thoughtful and I appreciated everything the reviewer said, but the line that made me particularly happy was this: “With lovely prose and fine pacing, Bauer offers a sensitive portrait of a flawed woman coming to terms with a lifetime of regrets.”

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

PW Starred Review: Norman Foster: A Life in Architecture

We were thrilled to see Publishers Weekly award a starred review to NORMAN FOSTER: A LIFE IN ARCHITECTURE. This professional biography was one of our most interesting books of the fall season, and this review nails why people responded to Foster's life story so well, regardless of their taste in architecture or knowledge of the field today. Thanks, PW!

Norman Foster: A Life in Architecture
Deyan Sudjic, Overlook, $37.95 (320p) ISBN 978-1-59020-432-0

Though Sudjic (The Language of Things) takes readers on an engrossing tour of Foster's life as a renowned architect, it's the exquisite attention to detail in recounting that life--particularly the childhood–that brings this book to such vibrant life. Foster came from humble means; growing up in England's Crescent Grove--"unmistakably on the wrong side of the tracks"--left a lasting impression on Foster. His working class parents "had failed in what they wanted to do with their lives," Foster believed. Following his education at Manchester, he turned down a Fulbright scholarship because he didn't think it offered the "flexibility to work" and instead pursued the Henry Fellowship, which led him to study architecture at Yale. In the United States Foster was thrilled to "reinvent himself." Sudjic, director of London's Design Museum, does a remarkable job examining influences, Buckminster Fuller among them, who "gave Foster the ambition about what architecture might be" and deftly describes the irony of Foster's fame as the architect of influential buildings like the Hong Kong Bank which, though it elevated Foster to international acclaim, came at such great expense that it did little to make him more employable. Photos. (Sept.)

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Publishers Weekly: Overlook Sees Portis Boost from 'Grit'

We are, of course, avid devotees of Publishers Weekly, but it's nice to see our very own publicity director quoted in their pages about one of our most beloved projects this fall--bringing Charles Portis' backlist to a new generation of fans. Check out the article below, or go here to read it on the PW site!

Overlook Sees Portis Boost from 'Grit' By Rachel Deahl Nov 16, 2010

The Coen Brothers' forthcoming adaptation of Charles Portis's True Grit has brought the celebrated, if reclusive, author back into the headlines...and onto readers' bookshelves. Overlook, Portis's publisher, has seen strong sales on its tie-in edition of the book, which it published on November 4. The indie house went to press for 100,000 copies of the edition--it features, as the house's previous edition did, an afterward by Donna Tartt, with updated cover art that references the movie. A rep from Overlook predicted that a second printing of the tie-in will happen before Christmas.

The Coens' film, which is scheduled to open wide on December 22, has also ignited an interest in Portis's backlist. Overlook's Jack Lamplough said the press "rescued" Portis's backlist a few years ago. Portis is known, Lamplough said, as America's "greatest 'unknown' author," and now Overlook is seeing a sales spark in other Portis titles like The Dog of the South, Gringos, Masters of Atlantis, and Norwood.

While movie adaptations are expected to spark sales for their print source material, Lamplough thinks the Coens' adaptation is a unique example of how a movie can help a book. True Grit, Portis's best known novel, was in some ways overshadowed by the popular 1968 John Wayne film of the same name, a film which veered in tone and content from the book. According to Lamplough, though, the Coens' have stayed closer to Portis's book than the Wayne western, and they've been talking that fact up. "The Coen Brothers and [their] stars Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon have repeatedly said the new movie takes its inspiration from the Portis novel, and not the 1968 movie starring John Wayne," Lamplough said.

Overlook has also been doing its part to publicize the book. The house launched a True Grit Facebook page and Lamplough said the house is working with Paramount on a publicity campaign that pushes both the movie and the book. To that end, an interview with Overlook publisher Peter Mayer will be featured on the planned DVD edition of the film.

Thanks, PW!

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Negative Reviews: What's the Point?

Yesterday, PWxyz asked a question that hit pretty close to home for me, as a publicist--"what's the value of negative reviews?" A good question, and something that I've wondered about myself when breaking the news to an author that a review--and it's worse when it's a major review or a first-time author--has panned his or her book.

PW's question was actually originally found on Sarah Rees Brennan's blog, in this thought-provoking entry. She brings the interesting perspective of both a reader and a writer, and knows how hard it can be to read that sort of criticism about something over which a writer has labored.
Like any other person who reads a ton of books, I hate many, many books. Oh, how I hate them. I have performed dramatic readings of the books I hate. I have little hate summaries. I have hate impressions. I can act out, scene by hateful scene, some of these books. I can perform silent hate charades.

And in the past, I have reviewed a couple of books I hate. And then I would always feel crappy afterwards.

And I would wonder why. After all, I hated them! It was a public service to warn people off them!

This is why. One is that I am sort of terrible at reviewing things I hate. I am not reasonable about it. I do not add ‘Oh, but despite my loathing for the subject matter, the prose was excellent’ or ‘Still, the idea of a dragon in love with a tree is an intriguing one.’ And I feel that, especially since hate reviews are the most popular ones, because people love to see people hating on stuff, nobody is sure why but it is fascinating! – I feel it’s important to be able to write a hate review as close to objectively as you can, explaining why and wherefore, and not only getting your cruel mock on.

She also (wryly and somewhat hilariously, for anyone who's ever held the hand of a poorly-reviewed author) discusses her "addiction" to reading her own reviews. Really, the entire entry is worth a read, but it also leads to something that's important to realize--most reviewers will only review books they like.

Well, I start with only reviewing books I really, really like, or books I love. The books I hate? No. The books I'm 'meh' about? Also no. And sometimes I don't review books that I do love, because I forget or I don't have time. (Another good reason not to review books I hate: no time, and I already wasted all that time reading them!)

But does this mean that nobody in the world should write negative reviews? No - I think people should. And this is lucky, because people will whether I think they should or not.

(As an aside, this also reminds me of this post on BookSlut, which made me comb through their recent reviews hoping against hope that they weren't referring to one of my authors.)

But the larger question asked by both Rees Brennan and PWxyz is a good one, and one that I struggle with fairly frequently. PW sums it up well with this:

The value of negative reviews is endlessly debated in reviewing circles. Some reviewers really enjoy putting the boot in, while others find it distasteful. Some, like Rees Brennan, both enjoy it and find it distasteful. PW publishes mixed and negative reviews, but many other publications don’t. However, no one debates the value of positive reviews, even though exactly the same considerations apply: they affect a writer’s morale, a book’s sales, a reader’s approach to the book. Reviewers and review publications would seem to have the same responsibilities in either case. So why are negative reviews so polarizing? And can this debate ever be definitively resolved?

You'll never find me in the "any publicity is good publicity" camp, but I do think that it makes sense that most book reviews are somewhat positive--unless it's a popular or big-name book, without reviews (or excellent marketing and sales!) most people will never read it and chance wasting their time and money on it, anyways. Helping steer people towards books they might like, and distilling why the book is worth reading, does seem like it should be a main point of book reviewing. If a book is simply not very good, why waste precious review space?

What are your thoughts? Have you ever read a negative review and read the book anyways? What do you do when you read conflicting reviews?

Thursday, July 01, 2010

Publishers Weekly raves about "On The Many Deaths of Amanda Palmer"!

Reminder: you can still upload your own palmeresque on the Amanda Palmer Trust site. You can win an advance readers' copy of the book--and it's time to start really getting excited for that!

Publishers Weekly is certainly excited to have read the On the Many Deaths of Amanda Palmer, giving it a starred review and calling it "coy, engaging, and delightfully imagined." See below for the full review!

On the Many Deaths of Amanda Palmer (And the Many Crimes of Tobias James)
Rohan Kriwaczek, Overlook, $24.95 (240p) ISBN 9781590203811

Inspired by the imagined death of the real-life (and living) Amanda Palmer, the front woman for the self-described "Brechtian punk cabaret" band, The Dresden Dolls, Kriwaczek (An Incomplete History of the Art of the Funerary Violin) puts his mischievous faux-scholasticism to work. Presented as an anthology of "Palmeresques," an artistic form of fan response to Palmer's mysterious death, each text offers its own darkly fanciful version of the songstress's demise. Also imagined are a jumble of issues concerning the shady dealings of the Amanda Palmer Trust (APT) selection committee, the possible influence of a murder suspect on their proceedings, and the intervention of the Boston police. A postmodern Russian nesting doll of realities, complete with poems, charts, and censored text, this book is successful on many levels: creepy and fun when accepted at face value; tantalizing when looked at as evidence in a murder mystery; insightful in its commentary on modern celebrity and culture--in all coy, engaging, and delightfully imagined. Illustrations. (Jul.)