what matters in literature ... the idiosyncratic

Last week was again time for one of book publishing's biggest events, the London Book Fair. Smaller and less cut-throat than the rights-centered Frankfurt, LBF is generally one of the conventions folks in the industry look forward to. It's mostly about showing off some new titles, technology, some rights wrangling, and handing out freebies and awards. The NY Times went out on a limb and described this year's theme as being about "what technology can do" (as opposed to the past six or seven?), though as far as technology advances go, unlike previous fairs, the focus for publishers has become less about eBook download piracy and electronic rights for eBooks, and more to do with Search the Book-type features from Amazon and Google. Rightly so.

Also making waves was LBF's new location. For the last several years LBF had been held at the generally accessible and well-liked Olympia Hall, this year, however, exhibitors found themselves out in the Docklands at ExCel Centre, an experience, apparently akin to "the Meadowlands" and "going to work at JFK" with visitors "aghast to find local restaurants and bars closed" (hooray for priorities people!).

This year's event stirred up some "real" controversy, too. In what I guess can be considered a political stand, it looks like some big name authors decided to step away from their desks and stretch a bit after learning that LBF organizer, Reed Elsevier Exhibitions, also play host to Europe's largest defense systems and arms fair. Authors J.M. Coetzee, A.S. Byatt, Ian McEwan, Nick Hornby, Mark Haddon (fine scribes, all), were among the signatures on a letter condemning Reed to TLS briefly expressing their dismay that, "our trade should be commercially connected to one which exacerbates insecurity and repression, and which props up regimes inimical to free expression." Agreed, and, a nice thought. In theory. However, as anti-gun, anti-oppression, and anti-censorship as I am, my initial reaction is ... How can you justify boycotting Reed's freedom of choice to legally do business--no matter how you might feel about war, defense systems, and guns--under the banner of anti-oppression? It's not completely hypocritical, but it's close. I understand the protest was directed more toward certain "regimes," which I certainly applaud, but this just feels like more of the same kind of indirect "action" that I find so frustrating. Why make Reed the primary target? Why not direct your statement toward the source of the problem and embarrass Reed in the margins? I don't know. I'll grant that it's better than nothing and at least some kind of evidence of external awareness. But, well ... sigh.

And oh, yeah, there was some stuff about publishing books, too ...
________________

More from the elite world of publishing this week:

Junior, by Macaulay Culkin "Makes Ethan Hawke look like Philip Roth ..." [priceless], more on Macaulay Culkin, author

Kylie Minogue publishes "Showgirl" Children's Book

Judith Regan joins the bin Laden Family [but do they promise to keep her?]

Da Vinci Code Undressed and On Trial