Was it Kierkegaard or Mick Jagger who said, "You can't always get what you want?" Well, never mind; in the book business we just got what we needed.
Monday's statement from the office of Rupert Murdoch scrapping the O.J. Simpson interview and book was short and to the point: "I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project. We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson." Finally, a big city, big publisher had made the right decision! By canceling the project, News Corp. showed that it indeed has a heart, and maybe a soul: there are some things, after all, that are simply beyond the pale.
The relief was widespread, except perhaps for publisher Judith Regan and Simpson himself (though his lawyer declared him to be "indifferent"). Never mind that HarperCollins stands to lose some serious cash—some estimate around $1 million in printed books that will now be mulched—and maybe even any monies that have already been paid to Simpson or his "foundation." Although there may be some wrangling about it, it looks like News Corp. will simply write off its losses and slink relievedly away.
Why did "senior management"—which presumably includes Regan and Harper CEO Jane Friedman—pull the book? Obviously, public opinion played a huge part, as did booksellers' squeamishness about handling the book, the outrage of media pundits (including Foxies Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera) and the refusal of many Fox-owned stations to air the Regan-Simpson interview. But make no mistake: this was obviously, also, a business decision: when the public and good portions of the media turn on you, you'd better hope that advertising isn't your bread and butter. Will the latest turn of events put a crimp in outrageous publisher Regan's style? Some wags suggested (or hoped) it might, but I sincerely doubt it: Judith Regan has proven herself to be resilient. Like another Re(a)gan, she's the Teflon executive; you can bet she'll go right on publishing edgy, controversial books—just not this one.
All this, I think, is good news for the publishing business, and for books in general: it proves that there are limits to what a publisher is willing to do to sell books, and it proves that people care about what those books promote or evoke. Never mind that booksellers, and publishers, for that matter, routinely make choices about what to sell and publish—nobody is required to endorse everything, after all—the decision is good public relations. While it could be argued that pulling the book because of public pressure is just a reverse sort of pandering—"Give the people only what they already want" turned "Don't give them anything they don't want"—it also just might help reverse the disturbingly prevalent opinion that publishers, especially big publishers, are soulless gatekeepers only out for the money. "The people spoke and shunned the book," one executive said. "That means that books matter."
It used to be that publishing declared its morality, its values, by the books it chose to publish. Now, it seems, the business declares itself by what it refuses to publish.
I admit it's a weird turnaround. But, hey, I'll take it.
Agree? Disagree? Tell us atwww.publishersweekly.com/saranelson
