I think the translated letters/articles pretty much speak for themselves, but I’ll try and contextualize this as it goes along . . . Here’s the basic setup: Zvaigzne ABC decided to publish an anthology of contemporary Latvian writers as part of its “School Library” series. So far, so good. (Maybe. Pay attention to that “School Library” tag.) But in a traditional dick publishing move, they didn’t treat these authors with any sort of respect and totally screwed with their work.

Here’s a post by Inga Žolude, which was the first piece to point out some of the issues:

Kilbloka wasn’t around when shame was being doled out. After Vija Kilbloka [Ed. Note: Kilbloka is the Chairman of Zvaigzne ABC] dug herself a hole by saying Latvian literature has no influence, no good authors, no good works, and that it’s no surprise no one’s buying books, after her lovely compliments, which insofar as I understand are also addressed toward me, today I received a notice from the Zvaigzne ABC publishing house stating one of my stories was to be included in the “School Library” series anthology Newest Latvian Short Stories. Fantastic! But:

1) No one asked me if I wanted my story to be included. No one even told me about it. And the question of whether or not it’s ethical for them to send me this kind of email after some Prada-clad Satan has doused me in sewage? I have to overlook all of that because I’m some kind of Übermensch?

2) There is neither a contract, nor information on the royalties I’d receive for the publication. It could be because they don’t have to inform or pay authors if the book is being published for educational purposes. Excuse me?! What??? Vija Kilbloka’s office publishes this book of contemporary literature, makes a profit off it, but I get nothing? Why? Tell me—why?

3) My story, which was published in my short story collection Mierinājums Ādama kokam by Dienas Grāmata in 2010, was attached to the email. The story had been “corrected” by the work elves at Zvaigzne ABC, and the accompanying letter read: “Corrections I’d like to make to the text are marked in blue; these you can approve of or not, and you can include notes as to why you’d like to leave the respective section as is. The spots marked in red are things I’ve edited or would like to change, but haven’t decided on the best version prior to hearing back from you.” [emphasis mine] Wait. I’m sorry. I have to explain to you why I don’t want to change certain spots in my text??? Did gravity, all sane logic, etc., just cease to function tonight? I don’t have to explain myself to anyone! I’ve written my version, the only version, and never before have I heard that I have to provide some outsider with better versions to choose from.

I’d like to call the attention of the Latvian Authors’ Society AKKA/LAA and other institutions that develop incomplete laws and regulations to this situation and the issues related to authorship, copyright, and royalties, because appears that these concepts don’t exist in this specific case and can simply be ignored.

This kind of thing always pisses me off, whether it’s from a Latvian publisher, or one closer to home. And it extra pisses me off when there are no consequences . . . when publishers take advantage of some system to benefit themselves at the expense of the writers/translators who actually generate the value in this relationship . . . I carry grudges about this sort of thing for years.

In this particular case, thirteen of the best Latvian writers of our time decided to sign a petition. Here’s a news story about it from Kulturasdiena.lv:

Writers deny Zvaigzne ABC permission to publish their works in anthology of short stories

“. . . Taking into consideration the approach and (non)collaboration in the preparation of the anthology, we do not consent to having our stories used by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology of new short stories,” several well-known Latvian literati announced on Kulturasdiena.lv.

The statement, which was signed by Inga Žolude, Andra Neiburga, Jānis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Repše, Maira Asare, Inga Ābele, Pauls Bankovskis, Māris Bērziņš, Dace Rukšāne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdiņš, voices the authors’ frustrations regarding the deceitful attitude of publishing house Zvaigzne ABC while preparing its Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology. In the letter, the authors also state they do not consent to having their works published in the anthology.

The following is a reprint of the statement released by the authors.

The preparation of a certain book has caused numerous whirlwinds of discussion over the past few days. As well as a spattering of emotions, impassioned statements, and anonymity (see Inga Žoludes article and, particularly, the comments thread below it).

The preparation of Zvaigzne ABC’s Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology reflects wonderfully their unacceptable and deceitful approach. Dismissing the ability of Latvian writers to produce commercially successful works and simultaneously putting together an anthology of the newest short stories (which, according to Zvaigzne ABC Board Chairman Vija Kilbloka’s opinion on contemporary Latvian literature, will most likely be a commercial flop) is strange, to say the least.

And yet, why spit in the well from which we draw our water—it’s all the same, whether we drink it or use it to water our gardens. Shouldn’t we be spitting only in the Coca-Cola and Fanta wells, which have been drilled, branded, and sent into the global market by someone else? The situation in Latvia is such that, in the creation stages of a book, it’s much easier to let authors, other publishers, book editors, and proof-readers for original works pick themselves off, and watch from the sidelines to see which creative shrubs die off, which ones grow lush, and which ones yield the sweetest fruits. And then secretly pluck them and stash them in your own basket.

Does a status as a potential commercial flop justify the publisher’s actions toward the authors and texts to be included in their anthology? It’s possible this is a particular publishing business know-how move—to kick off production by weeding through the texts, making corrections in blue and red, and then informing the authors thereof as pure fact, instead of entering into agreement with the authors on using their works, discussing respective terms, etc. A number of the authors whose stories are set to be included in the potential collection haven’t even been notified. It’s hard to imagine that communication would be such a big problem, especially in this digital age where everyone is just a few clicks away—Facebook, Draugiem.lv, Twitter.

Maybe the “know-how” is Section 19 of the Copyright Law, which states the permissible uses of a work without the author’s consent or without remuneration for the purposes of educational or research materials. And the magic words are “School Library” or (in this particular context the sarcastic slogan)—“Need a book?” What’s more, Section 19 also permits the use of a work without consent or remuneration in the cases the work is parodied or caricatured.

True, for some, Latvian literature stops at Ezera, Blaumanis, or Poruks. For others, Latvian literature might only be the forgotten black-and-white portraits of Latvian authors hanging on the wall of some long-forgotten classroom. For others still, Latvian literature has yet to begin. The Latvian film industry has at some time started (or not started) for each of us in a similar manner, as have Latvian theater, classical, and popular music. Opinions and reviews can differ, and that’s what makes life interesting. But a disregard for something cannot be an argument for high-mindedness.

And so, taking into consideration the approach and (non)collaboration in the preparation of the anthology, we do not consent to having our stories used by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology of new short stories. Additionally, it would be commercially more profitable to delay the publication of an anthology until a time when Latvian writers will have analyzed what readers want, what a book has to be in order for people to buy it, and once writers start to take into consideration the codes necessary for getting people to read.

Signed: Inga Žolude, Andra Neiburga, Jānis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Repše, Maira Asare, Inga Ābele, Pauls Bankovskis, Māris Bērziņš, Dace Rukšāne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdiņš.

What’s worth noting here is this: “Section 19 of the Copyright Law, which states the permissible uses of a work without the author’s consent or without remuneration for the purposes of educational or research materials.” So to get this straight, this publishing company disses contemporary writers, then uses their stories for free to create a “school anthology” that’s likely to sell pretty well . . . That’s one way to up your profit margins.

Zvaigzne ABC did reply to the petition, agreeing to let these authors back out:

In response to the request of several Latvian authors to exclude their works from the upcoming Zvaigzne ABC anthology Newest Latvian Short Stories, the publishing house Zvaigzne ABC announced to Kulturasdiena.lv that it will respect the authors’ wish to not be published in the collection.

As mentioned before, Latvian authors Inga Žolude, Andra Neiburga, Jānis Einfelds, Gundars Ignats, Nora Ikstena, Gundega Repše, Maira Asare, Inga Ābele, Pauls Bankovskis, Māris Bērziņš, Dace Rukšāne, Osvalds Zebris, and Juris Zvirgzdiņš signed a letter voicing their frustration regarding the deceitful approach taken by Zvaigzne ABC in putting together its anthology on the newest Latvian short stories. The authors also denied their consent to have their stories published, additionally stating that a number of authors whose stories were set to be included in the collection weren’t even informed thereof.

Zvaigzne ABC representative Vineta Tropiņa explained that literary critic Guntis Berelis was approached in advance to put together the collection, as well as to write its introduction. The project was launched with authors he had chosen, each author being informed of this fact in writing or by phone. Tropiņa emphasized that, until this past Friday evening, June 8, the majority of authors had responded positively to the publisher’s offer. This changed after Inga Žolude’s blog post on Kulurasdiena.lv, and a few others only reacted Monday, June 11.

Tropiņa went on to say that, in the specific case of Inga Žolude’s short story, there were nine places in the text with suggested changes: a few punctuation errors, as well as a suggestion to italicize colloquialisms and profanity. “For example, the word �辱��ģ��, which we chose not to italicize this time per the author’s request.” Other authors were offered similar suggestions of this nature. “We’d like to point out that we purposely used the words ‘offered suggestions’, since the editor invited the authors to come in and discuss the best possible solutions,” Tropiņa explained. She also noted that Zvaigzne ABC has a long-standing cooperation with Latvian Authors’ Society AKKA/LAA, from whom the publisher purchases the license. AKKA/LAA is also in charge of handling the respective distribution of royalties for the authors.

The Newest Latvian Short Stories anthology is to be published for the new series “School Library”, which continues the tradition of the already popular series “Need a Book?” and is intended for schoolchildren. There are already three works published within the “School Library” series: Regīna Ezera’s Zemdegas, Illona Leimane’s Vilkaču mantiniece, and Knuts Skujenieks’s poetry anthology.

The “editing” thing is always a bit touchy, and could be interpreted in a variety of ways. To me, using these works without remuneration for the authors is just totally wrong. If only publishing companies had better morals . . .

There are more questions to ask about this—like, how many authors were they planning on including? Thirteen backing out sounds pretty damn significant—and other observations to make about the Latvian publishing world as a whole, but I’ll leave that to Kaija.

So says the Swedish Academy: “[He is an] author of new departures, poetic adventure and sensual ecstasy, explorer of a humanity beyond and below the reigning civilization.”

Of course, this year the Prize for Literature garnered some extra attention due to some comments from the Academy’s Horace Engdahl, suggesting that the U.S. is too culturally insular. Some people got a little peeved, to say the least.

Avoiding comment on le Clézio himself, I do enjoy that the award then went to a Frenchman. As we all know, there is nothing more patently anti-American than that.

“Of course there is powerful literature in all big cultures, but you can’t get away from the fact that Europe still is the center of the literary world . . . not the United States,” he told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview Tuesday. [. . .]

Speaking generally about American literature, however, he said U.S. writers are “too sensitive to trends in their own mass culture,” dragging down the quality of their work.

“The U.S. is too isolated, too insular. They don’t translate enough and don’t really participate in the big dialogue of literature,” Engdahl said. “That ignorance is restraining.”

Although I think there are a lot of great American writers, you’ll get no argument from me re: our cultural insularity. Four hundred original translations of fiction and poetry a year doesn’t result in an open, idea-exchanging culture.

Of course, American writers and critics are capital-p pissed about this and quickly, and sharply, responded:

“You would think that the permanent secretary of an academy that pretends to wisdom but has historically overlooked Proust, Joyce, and Nabokov, to name just a few non-Nobelists, would spare us the categorical lectures,” said David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.

And:

Harold Augenbraum, executive director of the foundation which administers the National Book Awards, said he wanted to send Engdahl a reading list of U.S. literature.

“Such a comment makes me think that Mr. Engdahl has read little of American literature outside the mainstream and has a very narrow view of what constitutes literature in this age,” he said.

“In the first place, one way the United States has embraced the concept of world culture is through immigration. Each generation, beginning in the late 19th century, has recreated the idea of American literature.”

There’s a lot to say about this, although it requires a lot of walking the line between admitting America’s faults (like Sinclair Lewis did in his 78 years ago) and insulting the gifted, admired American writers alive today.

So rather than put together a measured response, here are a list of my first thoughts:

1) Hell yes, America is culturally insular, and props to Engdahl for pointing this out;

2) I wonder if this will cause a backlash against international literature, rather than cause more American writers to read books from beyond our borders;

3) Immigrant literature does add to our culture, but it’s not a 1:1 equivalent to literature in translation—it always comes up as a defense of our cultural ignorance though;

4) To ignore the force of the marketplace on publishers’ decisions of what to publish, of editors’ choices in editing, of writers’ styles in writing is short-sighted. Not that everyone bows down to the mass public, but please, this is still a business, and people want to be successful, and in America success equals big money;

5) Dubravka Ugresic should win the Nobel Prize. That would be awesome;

6) For months I’ve been trying to write (by “trying” I mean thinking about) a book/article proposal regarding my visits to other countries in search of unique fiction and the number of times I’ve had people try to pitch me a book because it was heavily influenced by contemporary American writers. Who wants to publish derivative work in translation? (Well, lots of people, so skip that.) I’d much rather find the book that’s influenced more by its countries own traditions, which will inevitably have been shaped by other literatures including works from America yet retain something unique and different;

7) Do American writers/critics really think we deserve to win the Nobel more frequently than other countries? I don’t. There are fantastic writers from all over the world who are equally as talented and important as American writers. Over the history of the prize, the U.S. has had a few nice runs, as have other countries. Almost by definition, the prize should be diverse and as global as possible;

8) It’s dangerous for anything, especially a “peace prize,” to be viewed in a nationalistic way. Celebrate the writers that win, rather than criticizing the committee for not picking more writers from your own country. Same would apply to Engdahl. Making fun of American culture is easier than falling down the stairs, but you could give a nod to the uber-talented at the same time;

9) I’m so glad I got to use one of my as the title of a blog post, because, you know, Alfred Nobel created dynamite and the Nobel Prize, etc., etc.