Publishers Weekly's daily newsletter reports today that Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and Borders have made some decisions about OJ's "If I Did It":

Amazon will carry it on its site "just as it would any other book."

B&N will also list the title online, but will not carry it in its stores, with a spokeperson explaining that "the store's buyers do not believe there will be enough interest in the book to stock it in stores." They'll special order it for any customer who requests it.

Borders will stock it "since there will be customers who have an interest in purchasing the book." But Borders "will not promote or market the book in anyway." They're carrying it because "we believe in our customer's right to make his or her own choices about reading and listening material, and to support that right we feel it is our job to make a full range of choices available, without regard for our own preferences."

Where do you'all come down on this?

Personally, I have absolutely no interest in hearing anything that OJ may have to say...about this, or any other thing under the sun. And, personally, I'd like to see this book fall flat on its face. you think booksellers have some "higher calling" that requires them to stock garbage because some members of the public might be interested? Or should they exercise their own moral judgment, and simply say no?

Or maybe you think it's a bona fide literary release, with no moral questions involved? (Yikes!)

I'm reminded somewhat of years back when some radio stations stopped playing Cat Stevens after it was learned (or at least believed) that the converted Islamist vocally supported the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Some praised the stations for taking a "moral stand," while others condemned them saying that the public should choose for itself whether to listen to his music. But there at least the product--Cat Stevens' music--had some artistic merit!

Whadda ya think?

Views: 5

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I'd be lying if I said it wouldn't bother me if it makes the bestseller list, though. I hope it doesn't, and I think you're right - many who defended him will be left to wonder how an innocent person could write this.
I would like to think, like you, that this book will change people's minds, but I seriously doubt it. Here's how the dismissal of all that evidence was explained to me: "If your skin was black, and you'd seen and experienced what we have, you, too, would not believe one word spoken by a white man in a blue uniform."
That got me. So how does the jury system continue to work when some of its jury members feel so horrifically alienated? how can they possibly be impartial? i have an answer in my head and it's depressing me.

I second the motion for apathy. I was almost reluctant to start this thread, because just talking about him--even in a negative way--just seems to lend him some measure of legitimacy. But I decided that the discussion (in my mind) is really about the responsibilities of publishers and booksellers, and not about "You Know Who."

The best result would be if everyone just ignored the SOB.
He's not the one who sold the book to its new publishers. The Goldman family did, hoping to get some of the money they were awarded but haven't gotten through the sales of the book. In that respect, I find what they did nearly as reprehensible as his actions in writing the thing to begin with.
I hadn't heard that the book was being published after all. I thought Random House's decision not to and firing the editor who thought she had a hot idea was publishing's finest hour in the 21st century. Ken, I kind of agree with the instinct you didn't go with, that it might be better not to give him airplay by discussing it. Also, we would be wrong to assume that everybody finds him reprehensible or that no one believes he was somehow framed. When the events happened, I was working in the public sector with many African American colleagues and clients, and many of those I knew DID see it as a case of racial bias rather than a rich celebrity getting away with murder.
Makes me shudder that kind of inverse prejudice, especially if the people are educated.


CrimeSpace Google Search

© 2022   Created by Daniel Hatadi.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service