I haven’t read this article yet, but I wanted to state here after taking the poll that I still don’t know who this person is. As in, even after November 1, I don’t know who she is.
Unfortunately, I read the “poem” you included in your article. I’m afraid I can’t unsee that.
I really admire people when I sense that they have a strong sense of personal integrity. That’s why when I think about Kennedy and I think about this author, people who are both shells of what their jobs are supposed to mean, it turns my stomach.
I knew who she was way back when the original scandal broke but this is exactly as you say - a complete failure as a publishing decision. She doesn’t do even the minimum needed for a book positioned as it was - there is nothing there and, from the excerpts I’ve seen, is embarrassingly written to the point that makes you wonder if her editor was the one who should be getting more credit as a reporter when she had access to major figures. What’s your take on the message the publishing industry gets from this? On one level, it’s an easy book to green light - hindsight is always 20/20 - but when the manuscript finally came in? Lots of bad celebrity books are put out all the time but maybe the book folks got blinded by the fact that, while most of them knew who she was, she isn’t a celebrity? Also, any sense of how the politics might have played into sales? For a certain segment of the public, any attempt to lionize or even humanize Kennedy is toxic.
I think there was some potential for the book to garner audience if it was an RFK "expose," but from the reviews and excerpts it appears that the book is almost entirely about Nuzzi self-casted as the tragic heroine, which is just ridiculous. But even that would've been a tough sell as the market for these Trump-world insider books has grown considerably soft over time - even Michael Wolff's books don't sell all that much anymore - and the content of the books that people are genuinely interested in can be reduced to bullet point listicle articles.
Publishers are contractually obligated to pay authors for manuscripts they've produced unless it's truly beyond hope, a threshold even this abomination doesn't meet, but they didn't have to publish it. The pre-pub softball NYTimes feature on Nuzzi by - of all people, Carl Bernstein's son - makes me think there was some self-delusion going on, that they could thread the needle in a way that made Olivia Nuzzi into a Joan Didion figure, as though we would accept that once the terrible book arrived.
This is many more words, and much more attention, than Nuzzi and her bad book deserve. Bearing in mind Wilde’s dictum that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, you’re sparing her the worst-case scenario that is her proper due. Or would be, in a healthy culture.
I belong to that sad group of people who knew exactly who Olivia Nuzzi was November 1st, but I’ve always had a truckload of side-eye for her reporting. When I heard the book was coming out, I was skeptical but thought it possible that had worked through her issues and she could grapple with her ethical failings in an interesting way. Clearly that’s not the case. It appears to be more self-mythologizing with zero introspection. Maybe she did write it on her phone, maybe not. I think the point of saying she did was for the audience to have the response: “Can you believe such genius writing was simply tossed off in her Notes App? The Joan Didion of our age!”
More to the point though, can no one at S&S read? Did they fire all the editors? Did they really think that publishing that dreadful excerpt would BOOST sales?
This is an interesting analysis but it leaves out quite an important point. Those who claim the protection of the First Amendment carry with it an obligation to be truthful in all aspects. Occasionally that requires that hey expose those who would cause havoc to the institutions that create democracy. Nuzzi failed in that obligation and now deserves the scorn heading her way.
I am going to pretend I still don’t know who Olivia Nuzzi is.
But to one of your other points, at Back to School night this year I asked my kid’s 8th grade language arts teacher what books they’d be reading this year. She did not have an answer for me. (I will spare you a description of the honors project assignments, which I’m sure you can well imagine.)
To be fair, his 7th grade teacher had them read three full quite good books (A Long Walk to Water, Orbiting Jupiter, and The Outsiders) as well as free reading, poems, short stories, etc.
I had heard of her via Twitter. I couldn’t stand her. All these journalists would positively fawn over her, that she was “a great writer”. Then I would click the link and it was really bad pretend literary fiction prose.
I will read your “make more readers” piece. My two cents is people should read something that appeals to them, even if it’s not considered “great literature”. That’s to establish the habit of reading which is the big hurdle. I admit to reading Dan Brown’s book this month and I had a ball. I have noticed a lot of performative “read great literature” posts on Substack and my concern is people will try those books and give up. I think it’s okay to start with Stephen King, for example. I will say “Lonesome Dove” was the book that got me back into reading after college but I just think getting into the habit is job 1.
I suspect that many in the book-buying public, unlike the Vanity Fair guy who hired her and the publisher who acquired the book, don't want to reward Nuzzi for throwing journalistic ethics out the window. Also, having seen a small piece of an interview with her, I can only assume that the book is incredibly boring.
I haven’t read this article yet, but I wanted to state here after taking the poll that I still don’t know who this person is. As in, even after November 1, I don’t know who she is.
This makes you a healthy, well-adjusted person. Something to be celebrated.
What he said. Times eleven.
Unfortunately, I read the “poem” you included in your article. I’m afraid I can’t unsee that.
I really admire people when I sense that they have a strong sense of personal integrity. That’s why when I think about Kennedy and I think about this author, people who are both shells of what their jobs are supposed to mean, it turns my stomach.
I knew who she was way back when the original scandal broke but this is exactly as you say - a complete failure as a publishing decision. She doesn’t do even the minimum needed for a book positioned as it was - there is nothing there and, from the excerpts I’ve seen, is embarrassingly written to the point that makes you wonder if her editor was the one who should be getting more credit as a reporter when she had access to major figures. What’s your take on the message the publishing industry gets from this? On one level, it’s an easy book to green light - hindsight is always 20/20 - but when the manuscript finally came in? Lots of bad celebrity books are put out all the time but maybe the book folks got blinded by the fact that, while most of them knew who she was, she isn’t a celebrity? Also, any sense of how the politics might have played into sales? For a certain segment of the public, any attempt to lionize or even humanize Kennedy is toxic.
I think there was some potential for the book to garner audience if it was an RFK "expose," but from the reviews and excerpts it appears that the book is almost entirely about Nuzzi self-casted as the tragic heroine, which is just ridiculous. But even that would've been a tough sell as the market for these Trump-world insider books has grown considerably soft over time - even Michael Wolff's books don't sell all that much anymore - and the content of the books that people are genuinely interested in can be reduced to bullet point listicle articles.
Publishers are contractually obligated to pay authors for manuscripts they've produced unless it's truly beyond hope, a threshold even this abomination doesn't meet, but they didn't have to publish it. The pre-pub softball NYTimes feature on Nuzzi by - of all people, Carl Bernstein's son - makes me think there was some self-delusion going on, that they could thread the needle in a way that made Olivia Nuzzi into a Joan Didion figure, as though we would accept that once the terrible book arrived.
This is many more words, and much more attention, than Nuzzi and her bad book deserve. Bearing in mind Wilde’s dictum that the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about, you’re sparing her the worst-case scenario that is her proper due. Or would be, in a healthy culture.
I belong to that sad group of people who knew exactly who Olivia Nuzzi was November 1st, but I’ve always had a truckload of side-eye for her reporting. When I heard the book was coming out, I was skeptical but thought it possible that had worked through her issues and she could grapple with her ethical failings in an interesting way. Clearly that’s not the case. It appears to be more self-mythologizing with zero introspection. Maybe she did write it on her phone, maybe not. I think the point of saying she did was for the audience to have the response: “Can you believe such genius writing was simply tossed off in her Notes App? The Joan Didion of our age!”
More to the point though, can no one at S&S read? Did they fire all the editors? Did they really think that publishing that dreadful excerpt would BOOST sales?
This is an interesting analysis but it leaves out quite an important point. Those who claim the protection of the First Amendment carry with it an obligation to be truthful in all aspects. Occasionally that requires that hey expose those who would cause havoc to the institutions that create democracy. Nuzzi failed in that obligation and now deserves the scorn heading her way.
I am going to pretend I still don’t know who Olivia Nuzzi is.
But to one of your other points, at Back to School night this year I asked my kid’s 8th grade language arts teacher what books they’d be reading this year. She did not have an answer for me. (I will spare you a description of the honors project assignments, which I’m sure you can well imagine.)
To be fair, his 7th grade teacher had them read three full quite good books (A Long Walk to Water, Orbiting Jupiter, and The Outsiders) as well as free reading, poems, short stories, etc.
I had heard of her via Twitter. I couldn’t stand her. All these journalists would positively fawn over her, that she was “a great writer”. Then I would click the link and it was really bad pretend literary fiction prose.
I will read your “make more readers” piece. My two cents is people should read something that appeals to them, even if it’s not considered “great literature”. That’s to establish the habit of reading which is the big hurdle. I admit to reading Dan Brown’s book this month and I had a ball. I have noticed a lot of performative “read great literature” posts on Substack and my concern is people will try those books and give up. I think it’s okay to start with Stephen King, for example. I will say “Lonesome Dove” was the book that got me back into reading after college but I just think getting into the habit is job 1.
You write about important things. But omg that poem. Poem??? Could it be more disgusting or illiterate?
Does any piece about Olivia Nuzzi rank among the top 100 concerns in the world today?
William
I suspect that many in the book-buying public, unlike the Vanity Fair guy who hired her and the publisher who acquired the book, don't want to reward Nuzzi for throwing journalistic ethics out the window. Also, having seen a small piece of an interview with her, I can only assume that the book is incredibly boring.