It consisted of almost nothing, from what I understand, beyond a pitch meeting.
I’d like you to answer the question. If Lena Dunham got a book deal because she’s Jewish, or whatever the “demographically correct” group is, why did Ansari get a book deal of equal value for even less demonstrated book?
As to your criticism of Dunham’s pitch and the amount of food it allegedly refers to, how many copies of the book have been sold? Did Random House make their money back? If so, doesn’t that prove their decision to give a book deal to an immensely popular entertainer was probably a good one, however it might have contained more food references / Jews than you prefer in your books?
[QUOTE=DSeid]
I don’t think though, RickJay, that most of the hostility that is directed towards Dunham (and its notabe absence to Ansari) is based on Dunham being Jewish - Evil Captor is not I think representative here.
[/QUOTE]
I understand that, but I’d like Evil Captor to explain his remarks and his reasoning.
Sorry but I do not believe your asurance. If Ansari wrote, for example, a bit about looking at his baby brother’s junk and being concerned over how much bigger the baby’s balls were than his, do you think you’d even hear about it? Would he be accused of sexually abusing his brother for having looked at his baby junk?
Lena Dunham is not being excoriated for merely looking.
As it happens, though, since you mentioned David Sedaris earlier, I started to read When You Are Engulfed in Flames a few years ago and returned it unfinished to the library because I found his memoir-style content a little more disturbing than I’d anticipated.
One should not paraphrase inside quotes, CarnalK. The exact phrase (assuming the ops source quoted accurately) was "carefully spread open " which is not “pried” … but sure we can add that if Ansari (or another male humorist) wrote that he touched his baby brother’s balls after seeing how big they were and “they were firm man! That was one full scrotal sac. Made me feel … small.” you would very likely not be hearing accusations that he had by so doing sexually abused his younger brother or that he was being an attention whore or even hear about it at all.
I can’t imagine that some male comic has not gone there. And I am positive that many older siblings have done that poke, and looked inside their younger sister’s introituses. You think they are less curious about those parts than they are about other things?
My goodness though, talking about that curiosity … not proper … DUH.
Well, you understand wrong. Here’s a direct link to the Gawker article where it describes the book proposal in detail, giving the 66 page length, and the 13 percent figure for the food list. Bon appetit.
I have no idea on Aziz Ansari, I haven’t been following the story. Is there some reason why it should interest me?
I don’t know how many copies have been sold. When I wrote the column the only information I had was about the book proposal, because there was no book.
What’s your idea of “immensely popular”? And if the book makes back its advance, and more than a pittance for the publisher it’s an OK business decision I suppose, but $3.7 mil still seems like a lot. I think they took a risk there.
For the record, I"m not mad at Lena Dunham for taking the $3.7 mil, as I said in my post, I would have done the same thing in her position. I think the publishers were dumb to offer her that much based on what they had, and I suspected that she got all that money partly because she “fit their demographic.” In my article I said she was young, pretty, New York, Jewish and connected, and by that I meant connected to the New York arts and literature community through her parents. I mean, the style section of The New York Times covered a vegan dinner party she held, and this was before she got famous.
I also said there are a lot of young, pretty, Jewish New Yorkers who didn’t get the breaks Dunham got, but then, few were as connected as Dunham was. She fit the demographic perfectly.
Do I think Jewish publishers and literary agencies are generally more receptive to work from Jewish writers than non-Jewish writers? Yes I do! Just like I think white loan officers are more likely to make loans to white customers. People generally are more open to people like themselves, of whatever grouping.
Do I think there are a lot of Jewish people working in publishing in New York? Yes I do! Do I think they only offer big bucks to Jewish writers? No I don’t! Do I think a Jewish writer stands a better chance than a non-Jewish writer of getting a big advance? Well, a slightly better chance, not enough to get worked up about. Do I think a CONNECTED Jewish writer who lives in New York stands a better chance of getting a big advance? Most definitely!
RickJay was talking about Aziz Ansari. You asked if Aziz’s book proposal was 13% about what food he ate in 2010. The answer is no, there was no proposal other than a pitch meeting.
I am not being judgemental or a prude. Just pointing out that the quoted bit did not say she just looked. So, you were wronger even if i fucked up the paraphrasing.
Lena Dunham … getting a bit ugly. Yeah, I’ll buy that.
She isn’t the most attractive person in the world but I think GIRLS is a damn good piece of work. Love the characters, love the acting. I’d rather see more of Marnie naked and less of Hannah but other than that I love the show. I’m not going to read the book, but I think Dunham has a lot of potential as a creative genius.
No you didn’t fuck up the paraprasing. You fucking put something in quotes that was not was actually said. “Pried open” is a very very different thing than “spread open” - spreading open is how one looks at a little girl’s introitus - in my job I have done that many times. Prying open is a very different thing. (We try to avoid having to do that.)
But again, accepted that touching was involved as part of looking, and my created brothers’ equivalent is duly modified to include the touching element. Do you think that the male bit I described would evoke the same “ABUSE!!!” reaction? Even the same “attention whore!” one?
Evil Captor - business is full of calculated risks. Some would argue that paying more for a celebrity who will get some cohort buying the book on name only even it does turn out to be 13% shopping lists is less risky as a business decision in today’s market than publishing several books that some editor thinks is great literature by low priced unknowns. Not my industry so I don’t know but these professionals assessed this to be a worthwhile risk and I’d guess that several weeks at number 2 and still in top ten likely translates to it going to pay off. Paying for the name and the built in following is business as usual … that’s why George W. Bush was paid a $7 million advance for “Decision Points” … they didn’t care if he could write, they knew it would sell. And it did. Of course it is not always a sure thing … Hillary Clinton was apparently advanced $14 million for “Hard Choices” which probably didn’t do well enough to justify that money.
Also, you still think (assume) that Penguin Random House (or either side, she came in under the Random House one, the side owned by Bertelsmann) is a “Jewish publisher”? Or just that they hire Jews to make decisions about what authors to annoint? Or just that it is based in New York and media so it must be Jewish controlled? (And “insular” and “greedy”* of course.)
*Now CarnalK please note: quoted words are exactly what was said. Not what I imagined was said or feel is paraphrasing it. In quotes? Means it is a fucking quote.
The evidence would suggest you know quite a bit less about publishing books than the professionals do. Dunham’s book is selling well, as in fact almost anyone who knows who Lena Dunham is could have predicted. It’s not some mystery known only to the Jews than Dunham’s name is hot right now.
Fucking relax dude. First off, you called my mistake a paraphrasing error - I responded to that. Secondly, i made it clear I am not remotely worked up about “ABUSE!!!”. Just because I pointed out an error of yours doesn’t mean I am part of the evil army of misogynists you’re aligned against.
The way it is written? Yes, that is heavily implied. She’s fascinated by her sister’s vagina, makes an offhand comment about treating her like a child predator, and now that she has her in bed with her, all muscly and sticky, and she then she uses a euphemism for masturbation, while her sister is wiggling beside her.
Granted, I believe she just wrote it that way to be provocative. But I do not fault others for taking the implication at face value. If she doesn’t want people to interpret what she says in that manner, she should stop saying it that way. Even if you make up a story, you need to be ready for some people to believe it is true, especially when it’s purportedly about your own life.
If she wants to be a provocative comic, she needs to realize that some people will be provoked. Suing isn’t going to make them think they are wrong. And if she’s suing for publicity, I’m against that, too. I’d like to see heavy fines handed out for that.
It’s this attitude of hers that is starting make me think the “haters” actually have a point.
Um no. Your error was presenting a quote that was changed from what the actual quote was. That is a major order bigger than merely presenting a paraphrase that misprepresents what was actually said (which is “a paraphrasing error”). Yes, to me that is actually a big deal thing, no matter what the context and no matter what your POV is. If one presents a quote as evidence of something that quote had better be what was actually said, not actually a paraphrase, let alone an inaccurate paraphrase. I did not call your “mistake a paraphrasing error.” BigT assume that she was sexually aroused by the presence of her sister sleeping next to her (agreed that it sounds like such is being implied) and that such was why she was masturbating. Is that sexual abuse of her sister? Is that using her sister as an outlet or even sexually experimenting with her? No, it isn’t. It is using her own hand as an outlet.
I also think her threat to sue was stupid, but posting an article with the headline “Lena Dunham Describes Sexually Abusing Her Little Sister” is more than having been provoked. (But fine, it is “a paraphrasing error.”) It is lying. Call her creepy and inappropriate, those are matters of opinion that have been provoked, but publishing that she wrote about how she sexually abused her younger sister … that is more than attention whoring.
Ok, whatever. I think there’s enough overlap that the difference between pry and spread (in the context of finding pebbles in someone’s hooha) is not that big a deal and you are way overreacting.
I agree it is more typical child behaviour than abuse. This does not excuse her though for writing about it as an adult. Sometimes it’s best not to describe in public of opening up a 3 year old’s vagina. That knda stuff is best left divulged only to your therapist or kept hidden away in your own locked mental box.
