Black Writers to Publishers Weekly: What Were You Thinking?

Calvin Reid says he did not apologize for anything and

 I think there's a lot to talk about. Like why are so many black people ashamed of the black pride symbols of the 1970s. What's up with that!!

http://mije.org/richardprince/afro-picks-apology-n...

The more I watch how this is being handled by PW and Reid the more I see that this is not a race issue the way people think it is. It's a feminist/womanist issue. The male journalists writing on this topic assume Reid has the correct understanding of what happened. They frame their stories in that light ( http://bigsole.blogspot.com/2009/12/nyts-coverage-... ), and pretty much adopt the attitude that it's just a bunch of women nagging.  And of course, there are women who read what these men wrote and they assume that the male's version is the correct version. I wish somebody would do a case study on this for male/female communication in today's world.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

We the audience did not make that decision, the publishers and bookstore owners made that decision.

Absolutely, I realize that. Publishing loves its genres and sub-genres. It may be the librarian in all of us that loves to categorize things.

I guess I'm trying to find the line between grouping things together so they can be found, and making those groups less segmented so they can be discovered.

- Lisse

@ ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/ ) Home in the World: International Adoption and Other Travels

See, I have a problem with the question. Non-Caucasian authors did not set up the segregation of writing genres. You have to go back to when writers were only allowed to be men; European men in order to be validated. Women had to hide their identity by assuming a male name and later writing under a husband's name.

Time marches on. The women writers are in but only in specific areas. The ticker continues to tick. Seeing how long it took for women to be allowed to write the excluded authors wrote and published themselves. Only when the money flow became apparent did the mainstream publishers get interested.

At a distance. In only specific areas. Even if that publishing segregation did not apply to the contents of the book. Black skin? Black book. Now yes that is stupid, short sighted and publishers loose money in the short and long run.

We the audience did not make that decision, the publishers and bookstore owners made that decision.

There is also a need for publications that understand my body is not sleek and willowy.  I'm not dainty. My reality is a little different with different cultural markers and historical influences. The books of J. California Cooper may not be to your taste. There is the surface meaning that some would object to and then the deeper meaning that I get because there is a cultural resonance.

Do I wish that the "mainstream readers" would purchase more books by Asian, African and Latina people?

Yes. I  do. I purchase books created by mainstream writers, most who are ???

You can fill in the blank.

Can I force bookstores to stop placing these publications far and away from the mainstream content?

No, I can't.

Was it wrong for PW to have a special section on non-fiction writers? Of course not.

Those two words on the freaking cover + that image made folks pay attention.

Gena Haskett is a BlogHer CE. Blogs:Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com ) and Create Video Notebook ( http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com )

If you would like to discuss the quote/Tweet, which was "I think the PW cover depicts american black writing as cultish, personally. voodoo. foreign," then please contact Ruth Ellen Kocher ( http://www.wmich.edu/newissues/New_Issues_Titles/K... ). She is the poet and college professor who made the comment about the cover not the photo. 

I, however, am from New Orleans, and know a little something about Vodouin mythology and traditions and the association with dissemblance and "black power," which may be what Kochler was getting at in the shorthand that Twitter allows. I can't speak for her, but you may ask her, @ ( http://twitter.com/ )ruthellenkocher ( http://twitter.com/ruthellenkocher ) 

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Interesting. I don't see people attacking Lauren Kelley.  PW posits the anger is directed at Ms. Kelley. It is not.  

I'm sure there are people out there who don't like the photo. In fact, I think I've seen two, possibly three, people who have an issue with the photo itself, but by and large, this matter is not about the photo as a standalone piece of art. I personally have said the photo's pretty cool.

The writers I've spoken to don't like Mr. Reid's written copy which joins the photo and says something other than the photo alone. Some of them have articulated well in comments why they don't like the cover as a whole, and again the cover and the photo are not one in the same.

It's disingenuous to present this matter as an attack on Ms. Kelley, which is how PW presents it, and perhaps Ms. Kelley's fans have believed that. Attempts to whittle this subject down to "Oh, they just don't like Kelley's photo and don't understand art" definitely will not further dialogue.

Finally, there is no need to engage the photographer, Lauren Kelley. The objections are not about her or her work.

This discussion is about black writers and how they feel a PW cover misrepresents their work. Why would Ms. Kelley be a part of that discussion? Did she design the photo because she has a concern about African-American literature in today's marketplace. Considering the photo was taken in 1999, a full decade ago, I think not.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

You will see that it wasn't Nordette who made the "voodoo" comment. She was quoting what someone said on Twitter, it was someone else's reaction to cover. And because they see it in that context doesn't even necessarily mean that they would see it another light in a different presentation. As Gena so accurately pointed out in her comment, it's about context. It is a very striking and remarkable photo. But as a representation of African-American literature? I can see why people were offended by it. I haven't seen anyone call our Lauren Kelly over her photo. I've only seen people call out the use of the photo in this context.

Contributing Editor Sassymonkey also blogs at Sassymonkey ( http://sassymonkey.ca ) and Sassymonkey Reads ( http://sassymonkeyreads.ca ).

I'm confused -- where are you seeing "voodoo"?

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ). She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

The piece by Lauren Kelley, Pick Wig, not Afropick as stated by another post, was a featured work in an exhibition by new young artists from the diaspora that was mounted here at the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History in spring of 2008. To see info on the exhibition go to http://sonjahaynesstonectr.unc.edu/downloads/miles...

For a perceptive review of that exhibition go to http://www.chapelhillnews.com/weekend/story/13096....

The piece, and the artists, are both examples of the creativity and vision that marks the breadth and depth of the Black experience as expressed though art. Audience reaction to that piece, and others by Lauren, were unequivocally positive and most viewers of her work identified with the various meanings that might be implied by the different elements visible in the photograph.

This work is a daring take on the way that symbols of Black power, Blackness, femininity, feminism, Africa, and the diaspora can be understood by different generations and by those who come from different cultural backgrounds within diaspora communities. It is, without a doubt, a provocative piece in the same manner that much art seeks to provoke critical thought and commentary.

It is somewhat saddening to see some of the comments and reactions on this site. Persons are free to like or dislike a piece of art, but likening Pick Wig to something akin to "voodoo" is deeply problematic. Not because there is something wrong with associations with voudun or with any other syncretic spiritual traditions, but moreso that the writer of that post seems to see negatives in both the photo and voudun.

The question of context is also raised, which is a fair and serious concern. I found no contradiction in the use of this image for the article in PW given its theme. The point, to me, seems to be focused on ways that Black writers maintain connections to symbolic and practical notions of personal power while continuing to have to navigate the limiting categories defined by markets and those who market.

Obviously many of your posters disagree with this interpretation. Regardless, I think it is an unfortunate and all to common occurrence for us to impugn the integrity of an artist because we happen not to "like" their work. The attacks from the posts demonstrates how far we have to go when it comes to principled critique, something I'm sure Lauren would have been quite willing to engage. Instead, in the all out assault on PW, Ms. Kelley becomes a casualty of a regrettable, take-no-prisoners approach.

As a white "suburbanite" who used to work in publishing, I can tell you that until I read this post and the comments, I saw only the pun.

I also saw an image that must have taken hours to compose. I didn't get it as a message of anger or a position of submission (except in that models are asked to do a lot of strange and uncomfortable things in the name of art). I got the pun - verbal, visual, retro, and as puns often are, self-congratulatory.

But, there is a question that's been nagging me as a former bookseller. Is calling out African-American (or any race/ethnicity-based) writers as a separate genre hampering their efforts to garner a mainstream audience?

- Lisse

@ ( http://homeintheworld.typepad.com/ ) Home in the World: International Adoption and Other Travels

Yup. It's like: "OK, the issue's about picking afros...natural hairstyles? No? Oh, it's about picking books...books somehow written by afro hairstyles? No? Oh, it's about picking books by African ("Afro-") Americans..."

Fail, fail, fail--despite the image being stunning.

 ~~

This So-Called, Post-Post-Racial Life

http://postpostracial.wordpress.com/

And I really loved the photo. I would own something like that.

Yet, I kept looking at the cover, and thinking, "WTH?" I don't get it, but I do. I mean, it all really hinged on the atrocious pun, which was outdated as it was. Inappropriate.

There is no real connection, and Reid actually dates himself, thus making me question his relevance in the curent industry.

Uppity and proud since 1974.

Can't wait to see your book! Keep your head up and be so so proud of what you've accomplished!

I am beginning to believe that perhaps the publication was intended primarily for a white audience - kind of a 101 into the world of black authors. Because don't you know, we can't or are not - interested in reading books?

There's just no way that any white person I know would pick that photo to get white people to read about black authors, because like Nordette says:

It's the fists in the picks that seem to set off people. Some of us want change and we want to assert power, but we don't want to do it associated with a militant image.

People still bristle at the symbol of the Black Panther fist, who cares who else has adopted the fist as a symbol since.

First thing I did when I read this was googled images of Reid, because I had no idea if he was white or black, and wanted to know what frame of reference to get angry from.

If he's white, then he's a clueless idiot to not think about all possible reactions to this photo (isn't that something they teach journalists anymore?), and if he's black, then maybe he is just not as in touch with what's going on in the world as he was in the 1970s. What this photo says to him, a black man who grew up in a very specific place and time, is not what it will say to the majority of the public.

But, he's black, and I kinda wanna shake him by the lapels. Oh that poor photographer, her work getting this much coverage, but in a negative light. This isn't the context she wanted her work seen in, either, I imagine.

~~~~~

That NYer cover still pisses me off. I can see the "joke" but so many people were just hankering for images and thoughts to back up their hatred of that evil Obama, and those same idiots were likely not smart enough to get the joke, so blind were (are) they in their hatred. So, they ran a cartoon that furthers the divide for both sides. WTG.

What is bothering me so much about this Reid thing? He still thinks we should not be upset about the bizarre cover because we are not as smart as he is.

Bother.

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ). She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

My first thought upon seeing the photo was "How cool!" But in studying the context I became alarmed. I don't think the image is appropriate for the theme of the issue. What a disappointment.

Visit me at Somebody Heal Me: The Musings of a Chronic Migraineur ( http://somebodyhealme.dianalee.net )

Follow me on Twitter @somebodyhealme ( http://twitter.com/somebodyhealme )

I agree with you. It's all about context and the cover of a professional industry magazine is the wrong place. 

-----------------
Liz Henry ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... )
Composite: Tech & Poetics ( http://liz-henry.blogspot.com/ )
lizzard@bookmaniac.net

I didn't get the impression it was the image alone that bugged people but the image combined with the cover's words. Maybe he doesn't get that. He certainly doesn't get that even people who immediately grasped his pun also thought it sucked.

http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6711692....

He may work at Publishers Weekly but he doesn't get the angst black writers feel as they look at the market for black book authors and at black imagery connected to them. I'm sad that he's making it about the image and not the context. Thank you, PPR.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

And with all due respect to those who were offended by the image, that is not a universal reaction. In an e-mail message from professor Willis, a scholar of black photography, chair of NYU’s photography department and a MacArthur Fellow, wrote:  “It's amazing how the viewers read this wonderful image that exemplifies power, humor, style, and beauty. Including the fist on the comb indicates power and strength and pride. It reminded me of the 70s. Ironic could it be that the readers are afraid to look at the power in black hair. (smile.) Thank you for using the image and exposing Black Beauty.”

 I had to laugh at this closing paragraph from Reid's response ( http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6711692.... ) to responses to the cover. I hope all you complainers feel put in your place: someone smarter than you feels differently--someone who is a professor, scholar and MacArthur Fellow! (Can you claim all that?) Surely you malcontents just do not appreciate Black Beauty and Power!

~~

This So-Called, Post-Post-Racial Life

http://postpostracial.wordpress.com/

Now that makes the cover choice very personal for you. I'll keep an eye out for your book. Congratulations.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Calvin talks about picking his Afro in the 70s. In such a long post, it gets lost unless the writer, c'est moi, wants to emphasize it, but I didn't want to make it seem like a personal slamming of Calvin. God knows I've seen how some of us would jump down his throat more because he is African-American. Also, I think so much more went into the decision than just ethnicity of one of the decision makers.  This is what trips up Rush Limbaugh with his "black" sidekick and Bill O'Reilly with his, those white hosts assumptions that their lone black fellas know the minds of their fellow black people.

I remember all the black people who hated the Cosby Show, saying it didn't reflect black life and the family wasn't like "a real black family." I didn't know where they were coming from because I knew black families like the Cosby family, some within my own family, and now we've got Cosby-like black folk in the White House. And then we have people angry at Tyler Perry, my home boy ( http://www.examiner.com/x-10713-AfricanAmerican-Bo... ), saying his families are negative stereotypes. I laugh. Maybe. His families aren't like mine and he and I grew up in the same New Orleans ward, I think, but I've seen some people act just like the people in his movies, and I grew up calling my grandmother MaDear, but she was never like his MaDea.

It's a mess.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

The lack of enough black fiction in the 70s, how far we've come and how far we have to go--to not be expected to only write about "urban life" with sex and crackheads, to not be shoved off to one black section of book store even after we've won major awards ( http://writingjunkie.net/blog/2009/06/04/toni-morr... ), to not be told that our middle class black characters don't seem black but white ( http://twomindsfull.blogspot.com/2009/12/writing-w... ) because they speak well and never eat collard greens or chit'lins, and to be left out when a major publisher launches a website to help under-promoted writers in general ( http://www.examiner.com/x-10713-AfricanAmerican-Bo... )--was the lava beneath the relatively calm surface until PW did this cover. :-)

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

I don't know anything about Calvin except that he's male, and I could totally see a black guy choosing this picture because "it's a cool shot." I could even see a woman choosing "Pickin'," a woman out of touch with black writers and the angst they're feeling right now.

He speaks of being in the business 20 some years and he likes afros and he's not a black writer trying to sell a novel, at least I don't think he is.

I saw it as an ironic image of afro picks arranged in the form of an Afro and it evoked images of the 1970s, probably the most thoroughly lampooned and iconic decade of African American popular imagery in recent memory. It evoked memories of my own days in the 1970s walking around with pick in my fro and I thought the coverline was just the kind of amusing and memorable line that we usually use for cover lines. Obviously I was mistaken. (from his email)

Some of the issues that are on the minds of the writers reacting are not on his mind. We are not monolithic. I also thought, even before I read knew anything else, Calvin may be African-American because Brian Kelley, PW's editorial director, seems pretty secure about the cover. Some of the responses on PW's Twitter page, which you can read fully if you click the screen shot, are kind of glib. People, white people in particular, only get that secure about possibly insulting black people when another black person is beside them indicating the rest of us are just sensitive.

If one black person sees nothing wrong, especially if the black person was involved with the decision, then it's assumed there must be nothing wrong. You know how this kind of thinking goes, Laina, that contrary to my earlier statement that "We are not monolithic," when crap hits the fan then the shield is one black person as though we are monolithic. I admit it's kind of human to do this. If we insult someone and they object, we turn to our friend and say, "Did I insult her?" and if that friend says, "No, girl. She just needs to chill," then we're okay with it.

And Calvin's an artist himself, which is why I really believe this is about "artsy" brain more than anything else and possibly no females around to bounce opinions on the cover.

It's the fists in the picks that seem to set off people. Some of us want change and we want to assert power, but we don't want to do it associated with a militant image. We don't want white publishers seeing us or painting us like we're Angela Davis attacking the book industry because that may make them feel it's okay to ignore us, those "angry black women" at the door. So, they yell back, "Calm down. It's only business. We want to make money and your books don't make us enough of that."

And that really makes us irate, fearing that we will never get what our artistry deserves, and we start undoing our earrings, glaring and staring 'em down, and all they say is, "See, it's just an angry black woman. Toldjah. Nothing to worry about fellas." 

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Thanks Mata.....is there any way I can take back my comment? LOL.

That kinda wipes my theory out!

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Blog: Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

Writer: Hellbound:

Calvin Reid is African-American -- and a Howard graduate ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Reid ). There are just some days I do not understand how people think. This is one of them. The cover is just dreadful.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

You've all nailed it: context. Because the cover story was about contemporary black writers and how they are connecting with their audiences, a 1970s hairstyle photograph (no matter who took it and no matter how many awards the book it was in won) doesn't make any sense at all. Especially when that hairstyle is composed of fists.  I really hate the headline, too -- Afro Picks! to me says nothing about black writers. I think the whole cover was just really poorly done.

There is a tendency to think if someone who has won a bunch of awards or who has a great title chooses something, then it must be on a higher artistic plain than whoever is complaining about it. That's the attitude expressed in Reid's e-mail. He's genuinely shocked that the unwashed masses don't get the fabulous joke.

Nordette, I want to be clear -- a white woman can't have the same reaction to that photo as a black woman can, but I can see the problem and understand why you're upset. The combination of the naked woman with her head in a subservient position, the angry-black-woman connotation of the fists on the picks, the political nature of Afro hairstyles, and the flippant Afro Picks! title -- wow. Just wow. I have no idea how Reid didn't see how that would inflame readers or even just cultural observers, especially those intelligent enough to understand the weight those images bear.

Rita Arens writes at Surrender Dorothy ( http://surrenderdorothy.typepad.com/ ) and BlogHer and is the editor of Sleep is for the Weak ( http://tinyurl.com/9pg62e ). She is BlogHer's assignment and syndication editor.

Thanks, Rita. I'm not upset. I see why other people are upset and understand the pain, but I was with Calvin in the 70s picking my afro, so who knows, if I had been on the staff and they asked me my opinion, I might have been right there next to him saying, "WOWSERS! Cool picture." I don't know if I would have approved that cover though with that tag line and "Afro Picks!" because as a struggling black writer, I wouldn't want to joke about something so serious.

When I first saw the picture, all I thought was, "Hmm. I get it, and somebody thinks he's punny" but then when I saw what the story was about, I thought "Oh-oh. Somebody in twouble."

If you'll go back and read my comments on the Obama New Yorker cover, you'll see that I was one of the people who understood the satire (It is indeed satire, but ... ( http://www.blogher.com/mccain-obama-campaigns-agre... )).  I didn't think the cover was a wise choice, but I didn't blow a gasket over it.

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Imagine if you will that you are a new writer, your first book debuts in January and you received word that your book was reviewed positively in Publishers Weekly. Then you find out that your editor is featured in an article about African American Literature. You would be excited to see that magazine and read that article, wouldn't you? This was the bizarre circumstance I found myself in today.

The link I had took me straight to the article so I had not seen the cover. I found the article itself to be informative; my editor, Selena James represented herself well and I called it a rip-roaring success. And then the tweets and emails started coming in... What's up with that cover, Michele?

I found it surreal, mostly because I've been battling to have my work represented as fiction that just happens to focus on African-American characters. The visceral image of a black women with her head down chock-full of angry afro picks seemed out of context and a tad insensitive. Hence my stratospheric fail comment. I was asked under what circumstances would I have not objected to the picture: If it was on the cover of a magazine about hair and retro hairstyles. As someone said above... context.

I write as Michele Grant, my first book, Heard It All Before ( http://www.MicheleGrant.net/books ), from dafina/Kensington will be in stores this January. I also write at the Black 'n Bougie blog ( http://www.blacknbougie.com ). Thank you. 

I'm a little dense.  I'm looking at the cover of Publishers Weekly which generally does not have women with hair tools sticking out of their head. It has little to do with selling or promoting books. Or so I thought.

So yes, I'm looking at the photo. I'm staring at the photo. I see the power fist in the picks and wondering what the heck is going on? Before I read any of the above explanation I breathe deeply because I feel weary that I see this again.

Context is everything. If I had seen that photo in a gallery or in a museum I would have had a context for understanding. Placing it on the cover of PW gave it a whole different context of exclusion, of marginalization and "these are books by black people" and not of "writers."

Context.  This is the context that was brought forth.

There is a contextual separation in those "Afro Picks." Not to mention racial and gender. It is nice that they stepped up and told us they take responsibility. Yes, let's not drag it out, say you are sorry and move on. I believe that is the current PR way to handle this situation.

No. Not Really.  

Gena Haskett is a BlogHer CE. Blogs:Out On The Stoop ( http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com ) and Create Video Notebook ( http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com )

Um, no Nordette.  The words of PW's Editorial Director and its Senior Editor, Calvin Reid don't explain why they thought this was a great illustration for a cover about modern black writing.  If the article were about 70's black fiction, I'd say sure, use the picture. 

But for an article about "New books and trends in African American publishing," how does this cover illustrate that?  

I'll agree with Mr. Reid that Felicia Pride's article is excellent, but the PW cover shortchanged it terribly. 

Megan

TV/Online Video Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/ )

Meg's Rad Reviews ( http://www.megsradreviews.com )

I think this is indicative of how much we matter. Obviously our opinions don't mean shit.

I am getting ready to publish a book next year (god willing) and even though because of the nature of my book I really do not expect to get much attention in mainstream publications, this still really angers me.

Calvin Reed is a great example of white supremist thought and white privledge - never having to consider others because they beleive that they are always right, that their position in life has granted them as all-knowing elders. HE believes he is a cool , culturally senstive person, HE beleives that he is anti-racist, therefore is aware of what images might be construed as offensive and belittling, therefore everything he does MUST be golden. 

In his mind HE saw the correlation between the picture and the feature story, but he never bothered to get a second opinion. HE, whom because of his position, most likely has read other publications, newspapers, watched television and should have considered the backlash that other idiots who have published offensive images of blacks have brought upon themselves - because oh no, he would never, ever do that.

This is a very sensitive issue. I was in a Borders in Indiana about a month ago and was shocked to see books like Ghetto Slut sandwiched in between Toni Morrison's Beloved ( I'm being a facetious here). There were actually more 'Urban' centric books than the 'classics' and that troubled me. I wondered if the bookstore was intentionally marketing books that they felt were more apt to be purchased than Bell Hooks, James Balwin, etc. I am beginning to believe that perhaps the publication was intended primarily for a white audience - kind of a 101 into the world of black authors. Because don't you know, we can't or are not - interested in reading books?

I could go on and on but I'm at work. Thank you Nordette for this post.

Contributing Editor - Race, Ethnicity & Culture

Blog: Writing is Fighting: www.lainad.typepad.com ( http://www.lainad.typepad.com/ )

Writer: Hellbound: