Today The New York Times obtained a copy of the late Senator Edward Kennedy’s September 14th memoir, True Compass . I write “somehow” because the book was supposedly embargoed. The practice of embargoing a manuscript up until its publication date is supposed to ensure that there will be no revelations about its contents (although certain media outlets are provided galleys and/or finished copies by signing agreements not to reveal anything about the book until release day).
I’ve signed quite a few embargo agreements over the years; I and the outlets for which I’ve worked have always honored those agreements. So I have no direct experience of working for a publication eager to break an embargo. I also believe that there are few manuscripts that are so newsworthy that it would be necessary to break an embargo. The Pentagon Papers, sure. Ted Kennedy’s memories? Maybe, maybe not. As the Times article elaborates, he did have some things to reveal about his brother the President’s thoughts about Vietnam.
But I’m not actually so much concerned with why a publisher chooses to embargo a book, but rather which how that publisher conducts the embargo process. As Ron Charles, deputy editor of The Washington Post Book World, stated this morning on Twitter: “Earlier this week [Book World] begged Twelve (the publisher) for advance copy, swore to uphold embargo, predicted NYT's scoop. ‘No, no,’ they told us. ‘That won't happen.’” Others jumped in and said that the Times does this constantly – “Who still believes this charade?” said another Twitter user. Noted critic and blogger Sarah Weinman wrote “Let this be a memo to all publishers, shouted loud and clear: NO ONE CARES ABOUT EMBARGOES ANYMORE. Capiche?”
Therefore I’d like to ask you readers: Is there any reason, in this day and age, to embargo a book? If you believe the answer is yes, then how should a publisher handle the embargo? Is it disingenuous to say “Oh look, someone somehow got a copy somewhere?” Do you agree that Kennedy's book should be embargoed?
