No, whats that?

Rachel Swarns wrote a book called American Tapestry, about Michelle Obamas white ancestors. Its fascinating. One of my favorite other books is Katharine Grahams Personal History. I love that book. I think Ive read it three times. Shes a hero of mine.

Are you at all worried about how youre going to keep that romantic notion of books now that youre entering the book world and making it your work?

Well, no, I dont think so. I find this work to be a calling. If I can keep a romantic notion about journalism, which I also have after working twenty-plus years at the New York Times, I can do the same with books being in the publishing world. I dont worry about that. Im somebody who lives with a lot of optimism, enthusiasm, and passion. And I dont think theres really anything that can rob me of that. If I can get through the tragedy I went through in my life, losing the man I love when our son was just six months old, and finding my way back, eventually, to a place of joy and happiness, I dont think Id be shaken up by being on the inside of an industry that I love, you know?

What do you think you bring to this job from your journalistic background?

Well, remember, its not just my journalism background. Ive been running the Pulitzer Prizes for the last few years. So Ive been immersed in books because we have five books categories. And Ive been announcing the winners of those for years and reading those books. I selected the jurors who judged those books and gave them their guidance about what we were looking for, and listened to the board deliberations around that. So Ive been immersed in books for several years.

But, in addition, I think the best nonfiction books are reported books. They dont have to be written by journalists, but they have to be reported. Going back to the point you made about authenticity, to write authoritatively, you have to sort of put on a reporters hat. So I think my training is going to be a strength in terms of looking at proposals and manuscripts and with an editors eyea journalists and an editors eye.

I think a lot of people dont know that not all books are fact-checked. And thats an especially interesting issue now, because were in a climate where the idea of things not being fact-checked or true is a big concern, but that hasnt extended to the book world. Should all nonfiction works, especially ones about politics or history, be fact-checked?

I think that we have to trust our authors, and select authors that we believe in, who present their manuscripts and their ideas in a way that they are already authoritative and already reflect the work that theyve done to set out what the story is going to be. And I also think that there are some amazing editors at Simon & Schuster who have handled some big books. They know what to look for. Sure, in an ideal world, I would have loved fact checkers at the New York Times in every story I wrote. But I think theres a track record and a system in place at Simon & Schuster and other publishers that brings about the results, successful results. I dont have towhat is that expression, remake the wheel? I want to build on the success that they have.

I didnt mean to imply that your writers were untrustworthy. I meant that people make mistakes. And theres just been so much concern about this in the journalism world. And thats why I was asking

A mistake is different than being sloppy, though. I mean, everybody makes mistakes. If youre not making mistakes, youre not growing. And, obviously, you dont want a mistake in your copy. But I can live with a mistake. What I couldnt live with is sloppiness. And theres a difference.

Let me ask you about that. There has been lots of concern about allowing ideas that are deemed dangerous, or alt-right, to use one example, into the public sphere in a way that causes turmoil at magazines or newspapers, and among readers. Simon & Schuster has a conservative imprint that publishes Candace Owens and Glenn Beck and Donald Trump. Im wondering what you think about publishing those kinds of books and whether you think that that is good for the public debate.

Well, of course it is. Im not into censorship, but I do think there has to be a fine line between books that inform the reader about different perspectives, that maybe open them up to a way of thinking about the world or an issue in ways that they havent, and that work thats dangerous or somehow doesnt add public value, if you will. Those kinds of books I wouldnt be interested in at all.

But I do think that there are people who think its controversial to write books about race, or the Black Lives Matter movement. So the most provocative books, just like the most provocative journalists, are always going to have supporters and detractors. And sometimes the book that is the most controversial, the newspaper articles that are the most controversial, are controversial because theyre hitting people viscerally and making them think, and thats not a bad thing. Now, something thats inflammatory just for the sake of being inflammatory, I dont think has any place at Simon & Schuster, or the New York Times, or anywhere else. It has to be a larger message of broader purpose.

The reason I brought up Glenn Beck, Trump, and Candace Owens is that Im not sure that there is a larger purpose, or that the purpose is to be something other than inflammatory. And I do think its interesting that the debate about whether those voices should be paid to offer their opinions by companies that are engaging in free expression hasnt hit the book world in the same way.

Yeah. I think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis, honestly. Some of those books do have a place, and some dont. And Im hopeful that Ill know them when I see them.

Jonathan Karp has published a couple of the Presidents books. I assume the President, when he stops being President, will want to write more books. How would you feel about publishing his books in the future at Simon & Schuster?

You mean Trumps books?

Yeah.

Oh, hes the President. Everyone who leaves the White House has one or more books in them and that becomes part of public history. I think that would be not only appropriate but important.

O.K. It feels like maybe this is a little different. I wont make a joke about whether that book should be fact-checked, but I think you see what Im getting at.

Yeah.

But you dont find the issue of whether to do that particularly complex? You seem to be very clearly on the side of free expression and think every form of it is a good thing.

Yes, but as I said, it has to be taken on a case-by-case basis. But, in terms of the specific question about the President, every President who leaves office writes their memoirs, their personal history, what have you. And it becomes part of American history. And I dont see that thats going to be any different with a Trump book.

Publishing is always talked about as being endangered, at least in the past couple of decades. Books have always been talked about as being in danger. Are we going to be done with booksare there going to be e-books, are there going to be no books? Is that something you worry about?

I dont buy it at all. I think there are lots of word nerds out there like me. I used to say this in journalism. When folks talk about newspapers no longer being around, it may not be in paper form in the future, but this country will always have a need for information. Whether thats newspapers, magazines, or books, one of the beauties of this country is we have a very literate population, a very engaged population, a very curious population, and thats not going to change. And books arent going anywhere. How you read them, whether you read them on a phone or in the dead-tree version, doesnt really matter, but theyre not going anywhere. There are too many important voices and important stories to tell.

See the original post here:

Dana Canedy, the New Head of Simon & Schuster, on Facts, Diversity, and the Future of Publishing - The New Yorker