You're adding complexity to a situation that doesn't need it, and masking some serious social problems here with what can only be described as FUD. There is no way a man going undercover in North Korea would ever get his work labeled as a memoir.

Perhaps its a sad fact that the work of women sells more copies when sold as a memoir and the publisher is make a shrewd decision. Perhaps its possible that the publisher is just can't conceive of women in a contemporary way.

Whatever the case, the situation is FUBAR. This is a journalistic work and it should be presented as such because that is that only way to publish it with integrity. Everyone at that publisher should be ashamed of what they've done.

>You're adding complexity to a situation that doesn't need it, and masking some serious social problems here with what can only be described as FUD

I disagree on both counts. Maybe there isn't a serious social problem here - how do you know?

>Perhaps its a sad fact that the work of women sells more copies when sold as a memoir and the publisher is make a shrewd decision. Perhaps its possible that the publisher is just can't conceive of women in a contemporary way.

This is pure speculation, masquerading as insight. How do you know that your interpretation of this situation is actually correct?

> This is a journalistic work and it should be presented as such because that is that only way to publish it with integrity.

Ok. I have no opinion on the work in question. However, when you take money, you lose flexibility. It wouldn't be the first time that pressure from the publisher compromised the author's vision.

viz Black Like Me

If this theory is true, one needs to take it up with women: In my country they are the majority of book buyers and yes, many of them would probably respond to the memoir angle.

Men would not.

The publisher is still at fault. Lying does not become okay when it gets you money.

I was responding to:

"Perhaps its possible that the publisher is just can't conceive of women in a contemporary way."

The point is that apparently the female buyers cannot "conceive of women in a contemporary way".

I listened to her talk at Google on YouTube, which had a journalistic tone and was quite interesting. The part where she manages to show the kids Harry Potter over the objections of the censors and the evangelicals who want to show Narnia is amusing. If you look at the reviews of the book on GoodReads though, you get the idea that she spends a lot of it writing about how much she misses her boyfriend in NYC and other aspects of her personal experience not related to the subject. If it was to be a treated as journalism, those aspects would likely have been edited out, and probably not added in the first place. So, she did write something that was partially a memoir. Journalism is a bit more of a purist category, so memoir seems like the right choice for this book as it stands, however, it might have been better received if it were written as purely journalism.

If her publisher felt that what she wrote was veering too much into memoir territory, perhaps asking her editor to excise those segments would have been a better option than recategorizing it.

Why?

There's nothing wrong with an investigative journalism-memoir hybrid. The only reason to remove the memoir-ish aspects of her books is because some don't find the genre respectable or prestigious regardless of a book's merit.

>The only reason to remove the memoir-ish aspects of her books is because some don't find the genre respectable or prestigious regardless of a book's merit.

Truth be told, I didn't realize a memoir was something not respectable.

If her publisher thinks memoirs are more profitable, why on earth would they ask her to remove the memoir bits?

> "The tense relationship between authors and publishers is as old as books."

This logic masks any real problem within a "well, the larger problem has always existed".

Police brutality? "Well, conflicts between citizens and the police have always existed."

Etc. etc.

I don't think parent commenter was saying it's not a problem, just that it's a pretty universal problem.

The specific social forces at work in creating this author's particular problem are not at all universal, just as the disproportionate use of force by American police against black Americans is not just the universal problem of police brutality, but a specific circumstance in which that problem is made more extreme. Pretending otherwise is morally and factually wrong.

>The specific social forces at work in creating this author's particular problem are not at all universal

How do you know? Police brutality and disproportionate harassment of black Americans is a well-studied phenomenon. It has also been in the public consciousness, has been the topic of presidential speeches and debates, and was covered extensively by social media and mainstream press. On the other hand, this is the first I hear of some sort of bias against Korean-American women authors writing investigative books. I didn't even know that memoirs are not respectable.

Oh, I agree with you far more than the original comment, I was just trying to clarify because I thought it was an interesting point.

This is spot on.

>This logic masks any real problem within a "well, the larger problem has always existed"

Or not. How do you tell the difference?