Okay, I'm willing to grant that it's possible that Bloomsbury--the artists, the editors, everyone--looked at the cover and didn't even think about the implications of race.
I'm not.
I find that too many people (authors, publishers, artists) using the justification of "artistic intent" as a logical and rational reason for making poor choices in their creations. Anne Rice uses the justification of artistic intent to explain away the fact that she is unable to complete a narrative without eighty-six pages of burning purple prose (I remember specifically the span of about eleven pages being used to describe Lestat drawing blood from an old lady and how her skin felt quite keenly). Laurell K. Hamilton uses the justification of artistic intent to cover the fact that she is unable to write a novel with valid plot that doesn't involve Anita getting her clothes off twenty-three times during the course of the novel.
More and more, too, "artistic intent" is being used to cover things like the mess with Liar. It's as if someone is sitting at the publisher's going, "Welll. What do you think we can say to cover this? I KNOW! Our artistic visions didn't mesh! That'll do it. Write that press release." It's not an answer. It's not an apology, either. It's a blatant cover-up for a poor decision that could have seriously rebounded on the author because the next thing if the publisher hadn't have backed down would have been, "Well, if she didn't like it so much, she could have pulled her book out of the deal and given back her advance!" so effectively the author ends up losing revenue because the publishers made a mistake?
Publishing any work of art requires more than the creative process and the author or artist sitting toiling for hours. It also includes others at the other ends of the publishing process to respect the authors and artists. More and more, that just isn't happening.
Even "artistic intent" has to, at some point, have boundaries.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-13 07:46 am (UTC)I'm not.
I find that too many people (authors, publishers, artists) using the justification of "artistic intent" as a logical and rational reason for making poor choices in their creations. Anne Rice uses the justification of artistic intent to explain away the fact that she is unable to complete a narrative without eighty-six pages of burning purple prose (I remember specifically the span of about eleven pages being used to describe Lestat drawing blood from an old lady and how her skin felt quite keenly). Laurell K. Hamilton uses the justification of artistic intent to cover the fact that she is unable to write a novel with valid plot that doesn't involve Anita getting her clothes off twenty-three times during the course of the novel.
More and more, too, "artistic intent" is being used to cover things like the mess with Liar. It's as if someone is sitting at the publisher's going, "Welll. What do you think we can say to cover this? I KNOW! Our artistic visions didn't mesh! That'll do it. Write that press release." It's not an answer. It's not an apology, either. It's a blatant cover-up for a poor decision that could have seriously rebounded on the author because the next thing if the publisher hadn't have backed down would have been, "Well, if she didn't like it so much, she could have pulled her book out of the deal and given back her advance!" so effectively the author ends up losing revenue because the publishers made a mistake?
Publishing any work of art requires more than the creative process and the author or artist sitting toiling for hours. It also includes others at the other ends of the publishing process to respect the authors and artists. More and more, that just isn't happening.
Even "artistic intent" has to, at some point, have boundaries.