On Self Promotion
I have been subject to some criticism about ‘shamelessly’ promoting my book Security First – For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy so as to exalt myself rather than to propagate the new approach to foreign policy that it laid out. I think the best way to express my view on this “self” promotion is to draw attention to the struggle of one of my colleagues.
In his book, this colleague noted that increasing the income of the poor only elevates them from poverty temporarily; for only as long as the additional income lasts. And even for this elevated period, he argued, they are often hard up, especially when they cannot obtain any long term assets, like, most importantly, a regular residence. Hence, he worked out a sound and novel scheme to ensure that the poor will have savings which could be invested and would grow over time—to keep the poor out of poverty for good.
When the book was published, not a single major newspaper reviewed it. The reason was not that these papers are heartless or that the scheme was too complex, rather, the lack of reviews reflected changes in the media landscape. As the print media loses more and more of its advertisers, the book review sections of basically all newspapers are shrinking. Moreover, each year more than a hundred thousand new titles are published in the United States alone, and the papers review at best a tiny fraction of this enormous amount of books.
The publisher of my colleague’s book placed two ads in two selected publications, but it turned out that such ads do very little (they work a bit better once a book takes off). The author wanted to do a book tour, but the publisher, who suffers from the fact that ever more people read online rather than they buy books, stated that there was no money to cover the costs involved in such a tour. The publisher promised that once the book sells well, he could cover such costs.
Meanwhile, next to no one knew that the book even existed. Soon bookstores returned to the publisher the copies they had originally stocked. Hence, browsers could no longer stumble across the book. My colleague’s ideas were not aired, nor considered.
Quite naturally, he was crestfallen, although he still believed that his idea was a sound one, one that could help to lift millions out of poverty. Only, he could not find a way to get the word out.
I know this situation. I felt the same way when Security First seemed to face a similar fate. I never had any pecuniary interest in the book. (In fact, I gave all the royalties to the research assistants who helped me prepare the book). I believe with all my heart that if the new approach to foreign policy laid out in this book would be discussed, it could help to make nuclear terrorism less likely, genocides less tolerated, and help to make Islam better understood.
I made use of this forum (and many others) to call attention to the ideas in my book. I am sorry if for these postings troubled some people. But I am at loss how to give voice to new, book size ideas.
One final note: the criticism was aimed at self promotion. If I would write about myself you would read about whom I meet for dinner, how I kayak at the age of 78, or about the great sons I reared. My promotion instead is focused on ideas. If this means, that I will be boxed around the ears, I guess, this is a price I will have to pay for trying to convince people in what I do believe in.
***
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at The George Washington University, and the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale University Press, 2007).
No, no you misunderstand us. If you want to promote your book, promote your book. We like books.
It's how you went about it that drew criticism. It was a bit artless. It read like a press release making some of us doubt you even wrote it. If you really posted what you posted because you believe that serious, important books don't get proper critical attention and that you were surprised and relieved that your book did, then you should have said that.
Better yet, you should have taken on a critical reviewer or even pointed out what you think a favorable reader got right.
You offered us no ideas. Instead, you offered a bunch of blurbs about your book, which we could find on any book jacket while browsing through the Barnes & Noble or (more likely with this crowd) independently owned book store of our choice.
When you write about your book, you can be a bit unnatural. I don't know why it is but it makes you sound a bit phony. Please realize that I'm not calling you a phony. I'm just saying that you sound like something less than the man you are.
I think your insistence on using the subtitle "For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy" on every mention makes you sound far more corporate than personal (people refer to a Xerox, only the company called Xerox refers to a "Xerox Brand Copier").
What you posted today revealed something about your friend's experiences, your own anxiety about how your book would be received and about how you're worried over the fate of serious ideas. That's good, human stuff. And if it sells you a few books, all the better.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 5, 2007 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gangs of TPM Cafe members ridicule you on various posts. You wait several weeks to say anything. But you do later eventual address the issue, calmly. And you just refuse to be pressured to go back to your own blog and profess without discussion.
You know what: I like it! I really like it! (Sincerely.) I am thinking that this was the reason this kind of software was invented, with all the tracking functions and such. Rather than knee-jerk to knee-jerk, we have thoughtful periods interspersed with an extended conversation over time.
p.s. on
That comment really needs to go on Katha Pollitt's current thread; it is extremely applicable there. :-)
(As long as we're on greatest generation male personal lives, my father has you beat, he kayaks at 81. 50-mile bicycle marathons once in a while, too. He does not often go out to dinner, though, he's no good at that "feminine" socializing stuff.)
October 5, 2007 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the problem isn't your self-promotion, it's your failure (for whatever reasons) to interact with the posters on this forum. It might be that you don't understand the medium or are so used to your own medium (students don't criticize a professor, it's too perilous to their grades) that you simply can't grasp the fact that many of us don't like your policy and are just as convinced that you are wrong.
I read your book, I think your policy is condescending, patronizing and manipulative and completely misses the essence of Americanism - that ultimate freedom brings no guarantee of safety and that is the price we pay to live in a free society. Our history is one of risk taking and pushing boundaries and these might be our illusions of ourselves, but it is just as illusionary to think that security can ever be attained - it can't be. There will always be danger in maintaining a free society, that's the nature of the beast.
October 5, 2007 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto. I have no problem with self promotion but it is that condescending attitude that you have against people and movements from non-Western cultures that grates my nerves. You came of age when colonialism was still an influential ideology and it seems like it pervaded your thinking.
When I read your stuff I am reminded of Ghandi's answer to a question: He was asked what he thought of Western Civilization and he responded that he thought it was a very good idea. That was funny, but it illustrates a point that he carried and that was that the West really isn't morally superior to other cultures. The more I see of our war in Iraq and Israel's attack against Lebanon last summer, the more strongly his belief is supported.
October 5, 2007 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot of good ideas in Security First, along with a few I vigorously disagree with (such as endorsing the prospect of military action against states developing nuclear weapons, albeit only under particular circumstances). But as some of the earlier posters (is that a real word?) have noted, even promotion is better served by engaging on the level of ideas. Posting good reviews of your book doesn't get the job done; applying your ideas to specific situations (as with your piece on Basra) is much more effective. As in "he's a thoughtful guy, I should read his book"; as opposed to "he got some good mentions, I should read his book."
But enough of this; the main thing is that I found your book quite stimulating, and hope others will read it, whatever they feel about the issue of "self-promotion."
October 5, 2007 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even in a post explaining why you promote your book, you promote your book.
I've written four books. Granted, they're fiction, but they are books and I did a lot of research when writing them. Not enough to need research assistants, but it certainly kept me up nights and I drove my editor crazy with my compulsion to make things correct, when as Walt Disney once said, never let facts get in the way of a good story, or something like that.
I think more people might have been less hostile to your posts if you had simply posted your thoughts, ideas and opinions. Let your bio do the promoting. If they like what you've posted, they'll want to read more of what you have to say and they'll look you up. A link helps. You might have made more friends that way.
Notice I haven't mentioned the titles of my four books in this post. If anyone is interested, they can find out by following a few links.
Most of my books have been remaindered, too.
October 5, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with everyone except ArtA. I don't see a single sign of returning to consider criticism, in a reasoned way or even otherwise.
We all are aware that the contributors to the "book club" are here out of both self-interest mixed with the same sincere and even one-sided enthusiasm that went into their book. But we appreciate their being here. We may argue back, but still appreciate their being here. I have nothing but scorn for the person who can't contribute even a unique post, much less defend it, and certainly much less defend it by addressing comments. If you have no respect for us, it is only likely to foster less for you, regrettable as ArtA or I may find that that.
To put it another way, if those posts were contributed as potential Discussion Table posts, we'd nix them on grounds of common courtesy and insufficient content, just as we've nixed any number of empty cross-posts. The extremism in them wouldn't help either, but that's between you and Josh.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
October 5, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Postinators, postestors, posticants, postificators (I won't even go there) postettes (gender issues, with that one) posties (sounds like a cereal) postites (well, I guess we could make a case for that one) postists (just isn't sibilant enough in my opinion) post operatives (people might think we're invalids or shut-ins or something) postalites (it might be a religion for some) postimites (so biblical) postiles (isn't that a mint?) postgenitures (too patriarchal) postanuts (freepers have that on lockdown) postiots, postiacs (more of a psychiatric diagnosis than I'd be comfortable with) postarillos (a good smoke if you can get it) postas! (too yesterday) postpokes (like cowpokes, but you know how some people just cannot get their minds out of the gutter) postitnotes (trademark infringement problems) postalots (but then what about the people who don't?) posterboys, postergirls (people might confuse us with Jerry's kids) postarounds (a bunch of layabouts and ne'er do wells) PWPs (an acronym Elmer Fudd might use) postimas (we use words instead of anima(tion) get it? I thought it was rather clever) those darnposters :) (situation comedy title, I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I thought something like that would come of it).
October 5, 2007 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading that gave me Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
October 5, 2007 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you go here you can see that he's only got one recent comment, from May. Which is a pretty severe indictment of his actual willingness to engage commentors to his posts.
This isn't like NPR, where you can respond to every caller question with, "As it says in my book, Title Here: Subtitle Here" and at the end of the show Juan Williams will thank you for showing up.
No doubt, the man has a damned impressive resume. But in this environment, resumes are only as good as your last post.
October 5, 2007 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
snicker...
I know there's a nice short story in this somewhere, I'm just too lazy to care.
October 5, 2007 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Being extremely thin skinned is an occupational hazard of academia. Academics, as a group, are apt to overreact to the slightest criticism; and the blogosphere, unlike captive audiences of students, has no motivation to be especially deferential.
At the age of 78, however, it is probably too late to adapt. At this point, probably, the best thing is to just be onesself and let the chips fall where they may.
With this in mind, I think Mr. Etzioni's most valuable contribution would be a personal memoir of his no doubt very interesting life, rather than another book of platitudinous policy recommendations.
October 6, 2007 1:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Being extremely thin skinned is an occupational hazard of academia." John, I'm not one, but I disagree with that. Some are nicer in class than others, but they have to be used to peer review and explicitly conflicting publications, or they don't get tenure. I've also worked with many over the years as a textbook editor, and they're refreshingly open to reading reviews and even taking halfway seriously a nonexpert's reading that I'm called on to offer.
Perhaps it's a hazard of being a "public intellectual." Like those in the right-wing think-tanks, one is given more access, more influence, and more shielding from debate. Publicists and interviewers are flattering.
BTW, I don't totally fault him for not commenting, guest posters often reply to much at once in new posts. But that'd at least mean posts that aren't packaged, excerpted, and cross-posted. As we all say, we don't mind self-congratulation or publicizing. To us it's news. We just don't accept a media blitz with the high-handed assumption that it's immune to criticism. Can it be a coincidence that it aligns with opinions supporting a vision of foreign policy in which American might can pretty much get what it wants?
John
http://www.haberarts.com/October 6, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe you discussed your book, and the ideas contained therein, in at least two other posts previous to the last one. No one complained about self-promotion at that time. Many of the people who have posted here at TPM Cafe have books, and they have used the space given to them to discuss their books, summarize or elaborate on their books' themes and respond to criticism. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
But simply promoting or advertising a book without serious discussion of its content does not strike me as appropriate use of the forum. The post that drew the criticisms about self-promotion was nothing more than a selection of extremely brief laudations from a variety of reviewers, of exactly the sort one would find on the back of a book jacket.
I understand how much you want people to read your book. And I have no doubt at all that you want them to read it because you believe what it says is important, and needs to be heard and discussed. So then discuss your book. But book jacket blurbs do not a discussion post make.
October 6, 2007 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not one, but I am quite familiar with the milieu through family and friendship connections.
Many of them may allow questioning from peers in a peer review situation, but don't easily accept it from people they don't consider peers.
On the other hand, not all are like that by any means. As I said, it is an occupational hazard, not a given.
I admire scholarship and the academic project (as it were) very much. I only wish that their work were more available to the public at large so that we don't keep having to re-invent the wheel.
October 12, 2007 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink