AOL's Book Maven

A few minutes ago on 'The Today Show,' Denise Brown, Nicole Brown-Simpson's sister, said that several years ago Judith Regan offered her a book deal. In the course of those negotiations (Brown was quick to mention that she rejected the idea of writing a book about her sister), Brown says that Regan told her "I would never publish a book by or about him [Simpson]."

If she said it -- then how could she contemplate 'If I Did It?' Is this all about money, or do you think that Regan really does have concerns about victims of abuse?

I'm glad the the book and TV show deals have been cancelled, but I think it's worth considering how we think about what gets published in our country. Enough people left comments in yesterday's blog entry about censorship concerns that I believe we should keep discussing this.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

• #5 Comment from kbdneditor
  11/22/06 1:06 AM | Permalink

  Censorship is about books being banned, not about a company making a financial decision not to publish something because it would be too expensive in terms of negative backlash. And whoever said "unpopular books have a right to be published"...um, hello? You do know that publishing is a BUSINESS, right? If I write a stupid book that editors believe would be unpopular, do I have a "right" to get it published because otherwise the publishing industry is "censoring" me? This is patently ludicrous. Books are published because the decision makers at a publishing house believe they are well written (hopefully) and marketable (i.e. popular). They don't make a habit of publishing books that they believe will be unpopular, because if they did this regularly, they would soon be out of business. Being published is not a right, it's something that is earned through a writer's talent and/or ability to write something highly saleable. The decision to publish or not publish a book is a business decision, nothing more, nothing less. And censorship has nothing to do with this, unless the government gets involved and starts banning books, which didn't happen here. While I'm thrilled this trash won't be on the market, I'm realistic enough to know that it was a business decision, nothing more...and that the murderer will, sadly, still be entitled to keep his advance.
• #4 Comment from storyteller218
  11/21/06 7:20 PM | Permalink

  I too am glad that the book and show deals have been cancelled. Too bad he gets to keep the advance.
  
  I think the primary motivation among all parties was the money...at least originally. Perhaps they tried to justify it with voicing concerns about victims of abuse, and maybe Regan really meant it. But the bottom line is that she and everyone else involved expected to make big bucks off the story. There is no denying that.
  
  I do find hope in the fact that the deal was cancelled and money was lost. It tells me that the voice of the people can, in fact, be heard...sometimes.
• #3 Comment from slysocks
  11/21/06 4:21 PM | Permalink

  I agree with Majbeck with the exception that Fox has regained any scruples.  I remember the media storm and public outrage 10 years ago.  The majority did not want to see O.J. then nor have they changed their minds today.  People didn't want to see interviews with the jury either.  Both Regan and Fox are well aware of this but, they seem to think they could pull it off 10 years later; NOT.  
  
  It would be just dessert to have Regan fall flat on her face by publishing a book that does not sell but, to some extent, she will still pay for the bad press.  The most disgusting part is that O.J. still profits and gets the attention he craves at any cost.  I can only hope that a judge will ensure this money from Judith to O.J. is paid toward the civil verdict against him and he never sees a dime.  I also hope that people will not forget that Fox and Judith were behind this fiasco and shun them as well:  It's a cheap and tawdry way to make a buck.
• #2 Comment from majbeck
  11/21/06 12:52 PM | Permalink

  Unpopular books have the right to be published. Personally, I am glad that this book will never be printed, but I would have almost rather had it been published, printed, shipped and have NOT a single copy purchased. Although highly unrealistic, it would have shown reganbooks and simpson that the world sometimes polices itself. Judith Regan would have learned a costly lesson.
  censorship is a slippery slope. OJ should not make money off his crime ( yes, he did it.) But he does have the right to write what he wants. we all do. You just don't have to read, watch, or buy it.
  Do I think OJ will ever feel remorse or stop trying to earn money off his horrendous act, no; he is a sociopath and a murderer. He has no conscience, but until he is a convicted felon, he has the same rights as we all do. But the public has the right, in fact the responsibility, to make sure he is punished. Make him a pariah. buy nothing from which he benefits.
  As for the TV special, FOX finally has some scruples.
• #1 Comment from redsneakz
  11/21/06 12:50 PM | Permalink

  Legally speaking, if the government doesn't do it, it's not censorship.
  
  However, that's a legalism.  Especially these days, with large corporations holding such sway over what does get published, or, more properly, what gets sold, we really do have to think about what censorship REALLY means.
  
  1 - Does OJ have a right to speak?  Sadly, yes.  He is not violating any of the bright-line rules of free speech.  He's not inciting violence, or advocating the violent overthrow of the government, or even threatening anyone.
  
  2 - Does he have a right to make money off of his so-called confession?  Well, kids, he already did.  It's not about the royalties; it's about the advance.  He's already GOT his advance, regardless of whether the book gets sold.  He's fulfilled his obligations.  However, I'm not sure whether the Son of Sam law only applies in New York.
  
  3 - Does News Corp have a right to make money off of what he's saying?  Legally, probably yes.  Companies sell "true crime" books all the time, starting in the 1700s with the "Penny Dreadfuls" and continuing with books like "Helter Skelter."
  
  4 - Are News Corporation, ReaganPress and OJ morally reprehensible?  Yes.
  Morally reprehensible sells, though, doesn't it.