I love it. Can't we be smart and funny and self-conscious about our ethno-centric variations; individually as well as group-identified? And shouldn't images/titles/posts provoke as well as delight?

I think it's beautiful and don't understand the controversy.

I'm meh about the Afro picks pic but the cover of the book is stunningly beautiful and I think I'll "pick" it up. Pun intended.

The problem with the image is its lack of context. It would have been much more serviceable to the PW readers had the actual book jacket appeared with an informative headline. As it is, without the context, it becomes anachronistic, editorializing the whole "subgenre" of AA lit and not the specific title the image represents. I was there on Twitter when this broke out and follow several AA authors. They are already having a hard time understanding why AA lit has to be marketed in its own section and not as a part of the broader lit section, and this cover just reinforces the split. For a black author's take, see Nordeen's blog. PW has never been known for smart covers, and while there's nothing wrong with provocation, it would be a good idea to consider the audience first.

Part of the problem is that Publisher's Weekly is a trade magazine which only suddenly interests mainstream readers when it does something controversial or dumb (like pretending a list of 10 best writers, that is really 10 best male writers, is actually something done in honest wide eyed objective innocence.)
Within the industry, the "Afro Picks" joke is really about the usual banality of these kinds of headlines. As a books editor who has spent fifteen years coming up with original titles for fall picks, summer picks, winter slim picking, hot type, cool reads, etc. I appreciate how clever this headline is. Outside the industry for readers and writers who don't have to struggle with this headline problem, it's not as funny.

But there's no way you can contextualize that. I think any news about interesting trends in afro-american literature--and there are some very, very interesting trends--is good news. Those, usually minor writers, who want to bleat about how they shouldn't be labeled or categorized, can go ahead and do that if they want. Serious writers are usually happy about anything that is obviously meant as positive attention.

What's important is getting the word out about good writing. About writers who are, increasingly, writing out of several cultures, living in several countries, often living as both Africans and Americans, and writing astonishing books full of energy that deserve to be read.

If a banal, pun-ish headline accomplishes that then it's a good thing.

I've shot much more controvershyte over the years, but prolly a reach for these katz! RRR for a little artistic controversy...

There is little to add to Juliet's well-written comment other than to say, "I second that!". (r)

Given that the title of the original art work is "Pickin'" I find it ironic that there is this much ado over it. I think the great thing about all this is the fact that the magazine is getting more coverage and thus, the books inside will get more coverage.

And I love the image more than the actual book cover image.

I agree with Juliet that it's the banality of the headline--its typical slick magazine pun with the whiff of a sales pitch for cosmetics--that's the problem. The image itself is fabulous. If they'd just run it with the subhead--"New Books and Trends in African-American Publishing"--it would have been fine, at least for most people.

But part of the dynamic here has to do with who largely controls these kinds of headlines--and who's perceived to be in control. That's where having the racial context matters.

Martha I don't usually disagree with people who agree with me. But what I meant is that the headline is a parody of banality. It actually think it's quite creative. It only seems banal to people who don't get the insider joke of how often "picks" appears in book features. And, probably, the humor is a little too cryptic and it too easily seen as diminishing the great photograph. Still, I think PW, on THIS issue, is getting more grief than it deserves.

To be offended by this image is to find something offensive about the image of the afro. It's confrontational and cheeky but, ultimately, it is just an image of a black woman photographed artistically. We seem to have this idea that images of African Americans must always be incredibly serious, (or Flava Flav minstrely), but if this was an article about Scandanavian writing with a blond woman holding a fish who would be offended?

I am frustrated that African American writing is treated as a subgenre but this image is a punny powerful way of dealing with this reality.

I agree with Juliet and considering PW could completely ignore women in its ten best books list, they could also just ignore African-American literature. Would that be better? I also agree with Logophile that it is frustrating to have books by and about African-Americans treated as a sub-genre, but until the culture changes enough that they can be incorporated into the mainstream effectively (meaning not pushed to the promotional bottom-bin which can kill a good book) then the category will and probably should remain.

There a million ways you could have packaged this story to be pro-AA lit *and* be appealing to a wider audience. There is never only one editorial solution. At best, the message as it appears has had a mixed reaction, and so its brilliance has been lost on a lot of people who are smart and have a stake in the agenda. To marginalize those who didn't think it worked, particularly AA authors who would like to be packaged as mainstream, not fringe, (whether they're wildly successful or not) seems ironic.

Hmm, maybe everybody should see Chris Rock's new movie on African-American hair and THEN look at the cover...

It's art. It's creative. It's subjective. There is no accounting for taste or opinions. An oil painting of same at an auction would probably bring an eyebrow-raising price.

Hmmm, Juliet. The thing about a pun-within-a-pun is that it's insider baseball. I got it the first time. I don't think it's offensive. But I do think it trivializes the topic, just as slick magazine headlines have been doing for eons about everything from the first black president and racial politics to the plight of "welfare queens" and ageism.

If I had seen it I would have done exactly what the publisher wanted me to do. Say what the heck and pick it up to look inside and see what it's about and maybe put my money down.

Thank you Undertow - beautifully articulated.

I always bristle, when people like Juliet have to "label" the motivations of people who post an opposing view. First other defenders called us processed and weaved and "anti-Afro". Now Juliet calls us "minor" authors without having any knowledge of what we write or who we are. I'm not a minor author and have at least one book on several awards lists this year.

The African American section of a bookstore has become a ghetto where even agents and editors quietly admit books go to languish and die because mainstream audiences don't look there when browsing. It becomes hard to earn out an advance in the "African American" section. I recently penned a book with a white character so it WOULD NOT be relegated to that ghetto and my agent sighed and said "I wish other clients would think that way."

Let's call this what it is - Juliet. Some people are thrilled for any mention at all. But you don't speak for all of us. Many of us prefer not to fight daily with editors who think that the only valid voice we can represent is one stuck in an anachronistic stereotype. If we're going to have a true debate on this issue - let's go back to the article in PW and talk about the uphill battle we all face unless - as one colleague has done to make a recent bestseller list - you have to hide your racial identity from even your own publisher to get a mainstream book on the shelf.

Afro Picks as a tagline on that photo didn't call positive attention to our work. It simply reinforced the one-dimensional image publishing already holds. And frankly, I don't know of a lot of mainstream audiences that will look at the cover and flock to our work in a climate that still treats it as an "books for us" versus "books for everything else" environment.

Thanks Calvin - for creating yet another ghetto for us to be stuck in. I agree - it would have been better to keep the tagline to yourself and use the cover art of the photographic essay.

Next time - here's the tagline "Beauty Lies Within."

That would have been brilliant and made a compelling (and positive) argument to read the article about the climate for AA work.

I am so freaking thrilled to have found this blog. I love you. And your wife. That is all.

I agree with whoever said that a cover reference to Deborah Willis' book and the title of the artwork would have appropriately contextualized the image and its suitability. Such a reference might not be necessary with a well-known artist like Warhol or Koons, whose work is sufficiently embedded in the popular imagination.