Looks Sell Books.
I read an interesting piece over at The Rejecter the other day reacting to this article about "looks selling books."
The article points out the astounding half a million dollar advance offered to Nell Freudenberger in 2002 for an as-of-yet-unwritten book of short stories. The question other envious and disgruntled writers were muttering to each other was: Why would anyone bid so high on a book of literary short fiction on a young, relatively unknown writer?
The obvious answer would be that she's brilliant. Duh. But that's not what the word on the street was.
The real answer, everyone said, was because she's young and attractive.
Never mind the fact that she won the PEN/Malamud Award for young fiction and the Whiting Writers Award in 2005. It's all because of the first story she sold to The New Yorker, which was accompanied with an author photograph of Ms. Freudenberger kneeling on crushed velvet. People were bitter.
Of course I haven't read Lucky Girls, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of a doubt.
But perhaps this is all an American publishing industry bit. There exist two different author photos of Susanna Clarke: a UK version and an American one.
( Can you guess which is which? )
Whoa. In all honesty, I prefer the UK version. That Susanna Clarke looks like the sort of hermit, bookish, Mr. Norrell-esque woman who would shut herself up in a library in Northern England reading Jane Austen and writing all day. The other Susanna Clarke looks polished and urbane, someone who would have written modern literary fiction set in Manhattan. Both of the articles referenced above mentioned that photographers and publishers often encourage authors to "embody" the character or the tone of their work. But apparently you have to look young, attractive, and fabulous while you do it.
The article points out the astounding half a million dollar advance offered to Nell Freudenberger in 2002 for an as-of-yet-unwritten book of short stories. The question other envious and disgruntled writers were muttering to each other was: Why would anyone bid so high on a book of literary short fiction on a young, relatively unknown writer?
The obvious answer would be that she's brilliant. Duh. But that's not what the word on the street was.
The real answer, everyone said, was because she's young and attractive.
Never mind the fact that she won the PEN/Malamud Award for young fiction and the Whiting Writers Award in 2005. It's all because of the first story she sold to The New Yorker, which was accompanied with an author photograph of Ms. Freudenberger kneeling on crushed velvet. People were bitter.
Nell Freudenberger is a perfect example of style over substance. She is what the damnable publishing industry has sunk to- attempting to take a mediocre workshop writer’s pedestrian prose and make a ‘hot’ writer out of her by publishing her obscenely long fluff tales in outlets like the Paris Review, Granta, and The New Yorker, where she interned, having her pose sexily for magazines like Elle and Vogue, then offering her a half million dollar advance for a book of stories she hadn’t even written yet.
- A review of her book of short stories Lucky Girls
Of course I haven't read Lucky Girls, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of a doubt.
![]() |
I can't seem to find the infamous photograph of "sexy Nell" but this will do. She is young and attractive, but would this make you buy her book? Probably not. I buy books based on word of mouth, on reviews in Time, etc. If someone had told me to go buy her book of short stories because she was an amazing writer, I would go to the nearest bookstore, take it off the bookshelf, flip through the first story, and then debate if I want to read the rest. It wouldn't be until I'd finished the book that I saw she was very pretty and intimidatingly smart. Of course, this is me as a reader. I don't know much about the publishing side of books. Perhaps things are different on the other end, but I hope that the $500,000 advance offered was because they believed her stories would sell on their own merit, not because someone found her hot. |
Of course, this isn't to say that I'm not shallow when it comes to aesthetics. I have said time and time again that Neil Gaiman is pretty fucking hot. I mean, he is. Okay, so maybe he looks sort of dead and emo in a lot of photographs, but romantic pallour, dark shaggy hair, and a black leather jacket go a long way for me. But I'm not drawn the conventional attractiveness and I read and fell in love with Sandman long before I ever saw a picture of him. (By this I mean I read Vol I: Preludes & Noctures and then discovered his face on the back cover.) Talent goes a lot further than just looks in making me think someone's hot. Christian Bale is really hot. Daniel Radcliffe is hot. Rachel Weisz is really hot. Natalie Portman is really hot. Kate Winslet is really hot. |
![]() |
But perhaps this is all an American publishing industry bit. There exist two different author photos of Susanna Clarke: a UK version and an American one.
( Can you guess which is which? )
Whoa. In all honesty, I prefer the UK version. That Susanna Clarke looks like the sort of hermit, bookish, Mr. Norrell-esque woman who would shut herself up in a library in Northern England reading Jane Austen and writing all day. The other Susanna Clarke looks polished and urbane, someone who would have written modern literary fiction set in Manhattan. Both of the articles referenced above mentioned that photographers and publishers often encourage authors to "embody" the character or the tone of their work. But apparently you have to look young, attractive, and fabulous while you do it.



