unforum

[Fi]

[BOOK] Cathy's Book - Sean Stewart and Jordan Weisman

[konamouse]

Being the well trained little ARGer that I am, of course I called the number.

[buff]

Sounds like a great book to "read" or use in projects with the highschool class that I teach.

Hmm...

*me imagines using this book as an english project during an entire semester*

[rose]

Cathy's book

[buff]

Funny.

I googled "cathy's book" and found this
article about the book.

It gives the releasedate as september, 2006 instead of 2007.

Is it just me who's really looking forward to this book?

[apcfreak]

[buff]

[Fi]

Article in todays New York Times.

[aliendial]

The book has already been sold in 5 countries?

[jlr1001]

[Rolerbe]

I'm pretty sure I don't want to start seeing product placement 'ads' in my fictional reading materials (as quoted in the NYT article here by Fi). >=^ P (yuck)

(can we get yuck added to the emoticons?)

[Fi]

In a further twist, I just saw this on Adrants:

[ScarpeGrosse]

Maybe I've completely succumbed to my advertisement overlords, but I find this so ridiculous and completely blown out of proportion (imo, of course).

"Clinique #11 Violet" is okay, but "CoverGirl Whateverthefoo" is bad? Because of an agreement to spread the word about a book that, according to the aforementioned NYT article, is a welcomed, lyrical, engaging, well-written teen book? And no one is protesting the Gossip Girls novels because of their vapid consumer-whoring? (note: People are protesting Gossip Girls, but not because of the consumer-whoring, but because of the sex.) Or how about this Marian Keyes book next to me (which, holy crap, has got to be the most god-awful book I've ever spend 80 lunch hours reading) where, randomly opening to a page in the 500pg tome, I find Pucci and Dolce & Gabbana mentions?

Products and brands are mentioned everywhere - it's kinda the world we're in right now, but this seems, to me, to be a bit of an empty campaign against a book - We want kids to read, and we want them to be engaged and enjoy reading, but we don't want them reading an otherwise engaging book because Cover Girl helped with some promotion and got their lipstick mentioned. Once. *headdesks*

(For note: Other things the Commercial Alert group is watching/protesting: Fay Weldon (author of a new book with a deal with Bulgari); Broadway (they might be doing product placement); and Neuromarketing (stop using fMRIs and stop doing science to figure out how people think and remember because it can be used for evil marketing).

/me steps off her pedestal and passes around copies of Jennifer Government and tinfoil hats

[Rolerbe]

Well, as the one starting this soap box issue, I have to respond. Clinique #11 or whatever it initially was just as bad as changing it. I just didn't know about it until this article. This is a level of specification detail that can never be construed as essential or as an improvement of either the story or the writing. "She put on her prettiest/hottest/pinkest/whatever lipstick" and leave it at that.

We tolerate product placement in our visual media (e.g. movies) only because we have to. It isn't quite as offensive because it is background props. You can choose to focus elsewhere. And to sterilize your visual background would introduce some artificiality into the scene and might break your train of attention. But even here, the presence of real world product does not improve the entertainment, just avoids breaking verisimilitude.

In a book, its a lot harder to gloss over. It leaps out and grabs you by the throat. It certainly (for me) makes me question just where the authors focus of attention lies. Entertaining me, the reader, or treating me as dupe for embedded advertising. Now I'm not reading your narrative, I'm busy engaged in internal debate as to what's going on here. Talk about breaking the willing suspension of disbelief, now I'm sitting there with a book in my hand in disbelief over what has just been thrust onto me.

Even less acceptable is this particular case because it carries the additional baggage of what it says about how they feel young teen girls should be treated. What a poster child for ethical bankruptcy. As if there wasn't enough appearance pressure mucking up the minds of young girls.

It's one thing to ask me to buy your book. It's another thing altogether to try to sell me your embedded advertising. This is a bad, bad mistake from guys I respect. Guys I think should know better and who have enough to offer not to have to resort to this. The more I've thought about it, the more negative my reaction. I feel like Pip's lawyer. I just want to wash my hands.

Yuck.

[rose]

heh - and I think of all the times Chanel No. 5 is used in fiction (and yes novels) to indicate a mood. I'm sure I can think of more examples while I am making dinner just now, but that one comes to mind immediately.

But, more importantly, when can I buy this book? And give copies of it to my friends - not to mention my son's friends. Anything written by Sean Stewart is going to be art. If people choose not to read it, a choice I perfectly respect, that is their loss.