Roundup
whyouwannagimmetherunnaround?
Shteyngart & Cohen at Vox Tablet. Shteyngart, btw, also just got a mind-erasingly ecstatic review from Michiko Kakutani. Cohen, not to be outdone, is running for mayor of Annapolis, Maryland.
Snowden Wright loved Eugene Marten’s Firework.
Ed Champion did not love Richard Yates.
Did somebody say politics? Not bloody likely. But anyway, let’s meet Emily Henochowicz. I got turned onto her personal blog after reading about her in the New York Times. Seems the 21 year old artist / exchange student / demonstrator lost an eye after being shot in the face with a tear gas canister by Israeli police. But that news is almost two months old. The article I read, which went up on 7/27, is about how the Israeli Ministry of Defense is refusing to pay (and denying responsibility for) her hospital bills. Anyway, if you go over to her blog you can check out Emily’s art, including this pair of one-eye-favoring glasses that she designed herself.
The Economist had a great cover story this week (last week?) on the absolute fuckedness (my paraphrase) of the American prison system. The web version seems to be behind a paywall, but maybe you can find the issue at the story. Did you know that over 1 in 100 Americans is currently incarcerated, and that if you factor in people on parole and probation, the figure rises to 1 in 31* Americans under some form of corrective supervision. Related, this Nation piece about BP’s use of prison labor in Louisiana.
Also, the Economist apparently has an arts/books blog now. It is called Prospero, and here’s an interesting piece about arch-agent Andrew Wylie partnering directly with Amazon (and bypassing publishers entirely) to release e-book editions of Portnoy’s Complaint, Updike’s Rabbit books, and a suite of others.
Finally, Unsaid editor David McLendon announces on Facebook that Allison Titus is the 2010 recipient of the Transport of the Aim Poetry Prize. You might remember that Titus’s Sum of Every Lost Ship was one of five small press poetry titles to read this summer. I liked her book a whole bunch. So congrats, Allison! And a hearty cheers to Unsaid.
.
*For a few days this read “1 in 3.” Thanks to Steven Augustine for catching the typo.
Tags: Allison Titus, Andrew Wylie, Emily Henochowicz, eugene marten, Gary Shteyngart
Thanks, Blake. That wasn’t a reblog, btw- the videographer sent me a personal email asking me to post the video if I “liked it.” Anyway, it’s 2AM here in Asiatown and I’ve been drinking since about 8 oclock. Also, I ate two great dinners at two great Middle Eastem places- lamb tagine followed by spicy lamb sandwich. This awesome country is so awesome it’s stupid. And so stupid it’s awesome. It pretty much looked like that picture, only more awesome and less sepia. Anyway thanks again.
np dude. just cleared the accidental repeat, no biggie. hope you are having fun. i am jealous of that foodz.
Good. Good. If Firework doesn’t get every bit of the praise it deserves, we are doomed. That is simply one great fuck of a novel.
Heh, sorry to two-time you guys. Just looking to make friends.
prison planet yall
i imagine ed champion with a very serious facial expression, sitting in front of his computer. ed stares with intensity at a comment on his goodreads review left by ‘darby.’ ed ‘furrows’ his brow, pauses, and then places his hands above the keys. ed types the words ‘The rating is not a mistake.’ into his computer while feeling the emotional equivalent of ‘a teacher’s chilly rejoinder to an impudent student’ ‘intermixed’ with ‘loud, exasperated sighing.’ ed stares at the words he has just typed with a slight frown on his face. sitting at his computer, unsure of what reviews, blogs, or podcasts to ‘attend to’ next, ed begins to feel a complex sensation of ‘justice has been rendered; yes, justice rendered.’
If Shteyngart is considered one of our premier comic writers than the assholes who write Two and a Half Men should get the fucking Nobel Prize.
Give it a rest, you mindless sycophant.
Thanks, Blake. That wasn’t a reblog, btw- the videographer sent me a personal email asking me to post the video if I “liked it.” Anyway, it’s 2AM here in Asiatown and I’ve been drinking since about 8 oclock. Also, I ate two great dinners at two great Middle Eastem places- lamb tagine followed by spicy lamb sandwich. This awesome country is so awesome it’s stupid. And so stupid it’s awesome. It pretty much looked like that picture, only more awesome and less sepia. Anyway thanks again.
np dude. just cleared the accidental repeat, no biggie. hope you are having fun. i am jealous of that foodz.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOaAo2KkwI
Good. Good. If Firework doesn’t get every bit of the praise it deserves, we are doomed. That is simply one great fuck of a novel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUkErRmHTc&feature=related
Heh, sorry to two-time you guys. Just looking to make friends.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6DVoKwqzis
prison planet yall
i imagine ed champion with a very serious facial expression, sitting in front of his computer. ed stares with intensity at a comment on his goodreads review left by ‘darby.’ ed ‘furrows’ his brow, pauses, and then places his hands above the keys. ed types the words ‘The rating is not a mistake.’ into his computer while feeling the emotional equivalent of ‘a teacher’s chilly rejoinder to an impudent student’ ‘intermixed’ with ‘loud, exasperated sighing.’ ed stares at the words he has just typed with a slight frown on his face. sitting at his computer, unsure of what reviews, blogs, or podcasts to ‘attend to’ next, ed begins to feel a complex sensation of ‘justice has been rendered; yes, justice rendered.’
If Shteyngart is considered one of our premier comic writers than the assholes who write Two and a Half Men should get the fucking Nobel Prize.
Give it a rest, you mindless sycophant.
No worries jamieson. If I hadn’t been [see above] I would have (a) been paying attention, and (b) that note to blake would have been an email instead of a post. Said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet…. Anyway, you really should have been there for the lamb tagine. Next time!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDOaAo2KkwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LUkErRmHTc&feature=related
So that big frewfraw with that Wylie guy. Maybe somebody can answer me this, cuz none of the magazines spell it out for nimwits like me who can’t decipher Publisher’s Weekly. Does this mean that classics by Bellow, Nabokov, Amis, et al. will no longer appear as printed books? Can Random House still print them and sell them in bookstores?
Because if not, then Wylie is to be cursed among the wretched of the earth.
On the other hand, if Random House CAN still print its old Nabokov backlist, and these books are not disappearing, then why the big hoo-hah?
Justin, somebody, please fill me in. I’m dying to know!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6DVoKwqzis
Damn. Youtube beef.
I believe RH will still have the print rights – they simply stated they will no longer do business with the Wylie agency. I doubt they are ripping up current contracts.
The big hoo-hah in this is that Wylie basically signed a no-compete contract with Amazon for e-rights to all of these big name authors and/or estates. So, where when Apple came in with the iPad and allowed publishers to set their own price range (to a degree at least, and a higher degree than Amazon had done previously) for eBooks, by removing any form of competition for these titles, Amazon once again has the upper hand and can lowball the price, losing money but gaining the market, forcing readers that want eBook versions of these titles to purchase Kindles, where they make out like bandits.
At least that seems to be the deal.
The larger issue here is how this complicates the agent’s relationship w/r/t the authors he represents. The agent’s job is to stand between the author and the publisher, fight for the author to get the best possible contract–advance, royalty rate, option on future work, distribution, print-run, foreign rights, for a bigger book probably advertising budget, and a million other big and small things–and then to ensure that all the provisions of said contract are enforced. It’s almost lawyerlike, in many ways. Anyway, in contracting directly with Amazon, what Wylie has done is side-step all the publishing houses. Speaking as an author, I’m not sure what I think of this. Random House’s position is basically that Wylie is now acting as both agent AND publisher, with Amazon as their sole distributor–like when a record used to get released just at Walmart, or something. It should be self-evident, based on my description of an agent’s duties above, why an author would NOT want the agent and publisher positions to be held by the same person or entity–it’s a huge conflict of interest, and the author is the one with everything to lose. On the other hand, there’s the Wylie position, which is that he is not acting as the publisher–Amazon is. All he has done is sign a contract with a publishing company to publish a particular edition of a particular book; that’s what agents do all day every day.
Personally, I’m not sure what to think. For what it’s worth, and as the article mentioned, the Author’s Guild has come out in support of Wylie- they view the major publishers as dragging their heels into the digital age, and often using the relative newness of digital technology to secure grossly unfair terms for themselves–specifically the presumption that they had the implicit digital rights to books they bought for digital books existed.
No worries jamieson. If I hadn’t been [see above] I would have (a) been paying attention, and (b) that note to blake would have been an email instead of a post. Said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet…. Anyway, you really should have been there for the lamb tagine. Next time!
*before
So that big frewfraw with that Wylie guy. Maybe somebody can answer me this, cuz none of the magazines spell it out for nimwits like me who can’t decipher Publisher’s Weekly. Does this mean that classics by Bellow, Nabokov, Amis, et al. will no longer appear as printed books? Can Random House still print them and sell them in bookstores?
Because if not, then Wylie is to be cursed among the wretched of the earth.
On the other hand, if Random House CAN still print its old Nabokov backlist, and these books are not disappearing, then why the big hoo-hah?
Justin, somebody, please fill me in. I’m dying to know!
Damn. Youtube beef.
I think the particulars of this case are a little sleazy, particularly for the reasons Dan mentions above, but that last point seems very true — publishers should not be assuming they have rights they never paid for.
I believe RH will still have the print rights – they simply stated they will no longer do business with the Wylie agency. I doubt they are ripping up current contracts.
The big hoo-hah in this is that Wylie basically signed a no-compete contract with Amazon for e-rights to all of these big name authors and/or estates. So, where when Apple came in with the iPad and allowed publishers to set their own price range (to a degree at least, and a higher degree than Amazon had done previously) for eBooks, by removing any form of competition for these titles, Amazon once again has the upper hand and can lowball the price, losing money but gaining the market, forcing readers that want eBook versions of these titles to purchase Kindles, where they make out like bandits.
At least that seems to be the deal.
I’m not Tao Lin’s biggest fan, but I haven’t read RY… while I know for a fact that Ed is illiterate.
The larger issue here is how this complicates the agent’s relationship w/r/t the authors he represents. The agent’s job is to stand between the author and the publisher, fight for the author to get the best possible contract–advance, royalty rate, option on future work, distribution, print-run, foreign rights, for a bigger book probably advertising budget, and a million other big and small things–and then to ensure that all the provisions of said contract are enforced. It’s almost lawyerlike, in many ways. Anyway, in contracting directly with Amazon, what Wylie has done is side-step all the publishing houses. Speaking as an author, I’m not sure what I think of this. Random House’s position is basically that Wylie is now acting as both agent AND publisher, with Amazon as their sole distributor–like when a record used to get released just at Walmart, or something. It should be self-evident, based on my description of an agent’s duties above, why an author would NOT want the agent and publisher positions to be held by the same person or entity–it’s a huge conflict of interest, and the author is the one with everything to lose. On the other hand, there’s the Wylie position, which is that he is not acting as the publisher–Amazon is. All he has done is sign a contract with a publishing company to publish a particular edition of a particular book; that’s what agents do all day every day.
Personally, I’m not sure what to think. For what it’s worth, and as the article mentioned, the Author’s Guild has come out in support of Wylie- they view the major publishers as dragging their heels into the digital age, and often using the relative newness of digital technology to secure grossly unfair terms for themselves–specifically the presumption that they had the implicit digital rights to books they bought for digital books existed.
*before
I think the particulars of this case are a little sleazy, particularly for the reasons Dan mentions above, but that last point seems very true — publishers should not be assuming they have rights they never paid for.
I’m not Tao Lin’s biggest fan, but I haven’t read RY… while I know for a fact that Ed is illiterate.
Thanks Mesrs. Wickett & Taylor!
I think it’s starting to make a little sense. But the issue is complicated by the fact that so many of the writers Wylie represents are dead.
Would you mind explaining why, Sean? Please see my opposite take in the Rumpus comments.
Thanks Mesrs. Wickett & Taylor!
I think it’s starting to make a little sense. But the issue is complicated by the fact that so many of the writers Wylie represents are dead.
Would you mind explaining why, Sean? Please see my opposite take in the Rumpus comments.
In some ways, yes, but the question I think has less to do with living vs. dead author than it does with huge vs. small and midlist author. To fall back on more legal-ishisms, these deals that happen early in the life of the technology and to the marquee names in the business, will set enormous precedent in terms of what is and isn’t standard practice–or is even a realistic possibility–for the field in general. Ultimately, someone is going to keep Nabokov and Roth in print, whatever the terms are. The question is how those terms, established as a standard, will play out when we’re talking about, say, a Justin Taylor book–just to use one ready-to-hand example of a guy who is not Nabokov.
As it stands right now, Harper Perennial has bought from me the rights to publish my book in paperback and digital formats. If they randomly decided that they wanted to do a belated hardcover edition, I’m not sure they have the right to do it. Because there’s no logical reason for them to ever want this, it’s not a very important aspect of our deal. But now imagine that Harper had only purchased the rights to the physical edition of my book. That would have had a short-term benefit to me in that it would have left me free to sell e-rights elsewhere, and get paid separately for them. But it would have probably also lowered the advance on the phys. book (if they’re getting less, they’re paying less) and sent me to take my chances with the market again (which is nerve-wracking).
Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say I’ve got my collection out in phys. on Harper, but I do my e-book through a direct deal with Amazon. Now the two editions of my book are owned by two different corporations, and though they’re being marketed on the same Amazon page, they’re actually different products in direct competition with one another. That little icon of the cover of my book on the Amazon page is original artwork that Harper spent their own money and resources on- plus the layout and design, the copyediting, the proofreading, etc. If you could tally the costs (work-hours spent times salaries of those involved) of the people whose labor contributed to my book’s existing, from the acquiring editor to the publicist’s intern, you’d see that Harper’s investment in my book goes way above and beyond the check that they cut me. As long as Amazon is acting as a retailer, they get to use all that art and labor because they and Harper have the same goal- to sell the Harper edition of my book, and the question of phys. or e is a secondary one. But if the products are in direct competition, then what incentive does Harper have to allow Amazon the use of their cover art, their jacket copy, or the proofed and edited text? In fact they now have a huge dis-incentive. So Harper is in a spot where they’re boxed in to only selling the phys. book, and therefore look like addle-brained publishing dinosaurs, and Amazon is in a position where they either have to license all the parts of my book that make it my book, or else re-invent the wheel themselves. Then what happens if Amazon’s proofer uses a different standard than the Harper guy–the Chicago Manual instead of the MLA or something? What happens if the Amazon “editor” thinks the book would do better with a different title? Also, what if my savvy agent wheedles a NON-exclusive e-deal from Amazon, freeing me to then approach B&N about a Nook edition–do we do it all a third time?
This is a very extreme and largely unrealistic example, and there are many reasons why you won’t see anything like this happen in real life, but these are the *kinds* of issues that we’re dealing with. Here’s another aspect of it- my example assumes a simultaneous release of e and print editions. In today’s marketplace, that’s common, because publishers have figured out that e-sales don’t cannibalize print sales, or that even if they do it is worth it. They used to delay ebooks like they delayed paperback after hardcover; now they do simultaneous release. But I guarantee you that in a world where you sell your paper and e-rights separately, whoever buys them first is getting exclusive rights for a period of at least a year or two–precisely to avoid the insane conflict I outlined above.
So now let’s re-visit the example. Harper buys the phys. rights, I keep the e-rights. No need to hurry to sell those, because I’m probably contracted (a) to give Harper right of first refusal on the e-book, and also (b) to delay publication of an e-edition for some specified amount of time, let’s say a year. This is roughly how it will play out- Harper will try to buy the e-rights before the phys book even comes out. They’ll offer me less than I think I could get elsewhere, but my incentive to go with them is that now we can do a simultaneous e-edition, and also that I’m being spared taking my chances on the open market. But let’s say I reject their offer–I’ll take those chances, thanks. Okay, but nobody else is going to make me an offer until they see how the phys. edition does. Why should they? So the book comes out, it gets creamed in a few reviews and sales are worse than expected. My agent goes to Amazon, and honestly, they’re not interested. They say, yeah, sure, we’ll distribute an e-edition if you have it, but we don’t feel like playing publisher on this one. The other big publishers say the same. Now I’m back in Harper’s office, begging them to reconsider their initial offer–the one I thought was too low before–trying to convince them to up their investment in a product that, from their perspective, was probably a mistake to have bought the first time. Suddenly, the possibility exists of there being NO e-book.
Your rights to something are only worth what you can get for them; their only monetary value lies in your ability to put them to use. The upside to having one publisher do both phys and digital editions of your book seems utterly QED to me- it means they are marketing it, and you, in all possible mediums, at the same time, and every sale is a victory for the whole team.
Again, these are examples and thought-experiments off the top of my head. There’s a lot that they don’t account for–such as how a lot of the issues I raise are obviated when we’re talking about a book like, say, Pale Fire, the text of which hasn’t needed proofing or editing in 35 years, can sustain sales on several simultaneous editions, and which is effectively never going out of print.
In some ways, yes, but the question I think has less to do with living vs. dead author than it does with huge vs. small and midlist author. To fall back on more legal-ishisms, these deals that happen early in the life of the technology and to the marquee names in the business, will set enormous precedent in terms of what is and isn’t standard practice–or is even a realistic possibility–for the field in general. Ultimately, someone is going to keep Nabokov and Roth in print, whatever the terms are. The question is how those terms, established as a standard, will play out when we’re talking about, say, a Justin Taylor book–just to use one ready-to-hand example of a guy who is not Nabokov.
As it stands right now, Harper Perennial has bought from me the rights to publish my book in paperback and digital formats. If they randomly decided that they wanted to do a belated hardcover edition, I’m not sure they have the right to do it. Because there’s no logical reason for them to ever want this, it’s not a very important aspect of our deal. But now imagine that Harper had only purchased the rights to the physical edition of my book. That would have had a short-term benefit to me in that it would have left me free to sell e-rights elsewhere, and get paid separately for them. But it would have probably also lowered the advance on the phys. book (if they’re getting less, they’re paying less) and sent me to take my chances with the market again (which is nerve-wracking).
Here’s a thought experiment. Let’s say I’ve got my collection out in phys. on Harper, but I do my e-book through a direct deal with Amazon. Now the two editions of my book are owned by two different corporations, and though they’re being marketed on the same Amazon page, they’re actually different products in direct competition with one another. That little icon of the cover of my book on the Amazon page is original artwork that Harper spent their own money and resources on- plus the layout and design, the copyediting, the proofreading, etc. If you could tally the costs (work-hours spent times salaries of those involved) of the people whose labor contributed to my book’s existing, from the acquiring editor to the publicist’s intern, you’d see that Harper’s investment in my book goes way above and beyond the check that they cut me. As long as Amazon is acting as a retailer, they get to use all that art and labor because they and Harper have the same goal- to sell the Harper edition of my book, and the question of phys. or e is a secondary one. But if the products are in direct competition, then what incentive does Harper have to allow Amazon the use of their cover art, their jacket copy, or the proofed and edited text? In fact they now have a huge dis-incentive. So Harper is in a spot where they’re boxed in to only selling the phys. book, and therefore look like addle-brained publishing dinosaurs, and Amazon is in a position where they either have to license all the parts of my book that make it my book, or else re-invent the wheel themselves. Then what happens if Amazon’s proofer uses a different standard than the Harper guy–the Chicago Manual instead of the MLA or something? What happens if the Amazon “editor” thinks the book would do better with a different title? Also, what if my savvy agent wheedles a NON-exclusive e-deal from Amazon, freeing me to then approach B&N about a Nook edition–do we do it all a third time?
This is a very extreme and largely unrealistic example, and there are many reasons why you won’t see anything like this happen in real life, but these are the *kinds* of issues that we’re dealing with. Here’s another aspect of it- my example assumes a simultaneous release of e and print editions. In today’s marketplace, that’s common, because publishers have figured out that e-sales don’t cannibalize print sales, or that even if they do it is worth it. They used to delay ebooks like they delayed paperback after hardcover; now they do simultaneous release. But I guarantee you that in a world where you sell your paper and e-rights separately, whoever buys them first is getting exclusive rights for a period of at least a year or two–precisely to avoid the insane conflict I outlined above.
So now let’s re-visit the example. Harper buys the phys. rights, I keep the e-rights. No need to hurry to sell those, because I’m probably contracted (a) to give Harper right of first refusal on the e-book, and also (b) to delay publication of an e-edition for some specified amount of time, let’s say a year. This is roughly how it will play out- Harper will try to buy the e-rights before the phys book even comes out. They’ll offer me less than I think I could get elsewhere, but my incentive to go with them is that now we can do a simultaneous e-edition, and also that I’m being spared taking my chances on the open market. But let’s say I reject their offer–I’ll take those chances, thanks. Okay, but nobody else is going to make me an offer until they see how the phys. edition does. Why should they? So the book comes out, it gets creamed in a few reviews and sales are worse than expected. My agent goes to Amazon, and honestly, they’re not interested. They say, yeah, sure, we’ll distribute an e-edition if you have it, but we don’t feel like playing publisher on this one. The other big publishers say the same. Now I’m back in Harper’s office, begging them to reconsider their initial offer–the one I thought was too low before–trying to convince them to up their investment in a product that, from their perspective, was probably a mistake to have bought the first time. Suddenly, the possibility exists of there being NO e-book.
Your rights to something are only worth what you can get for them; their only monetary value lies in your ability to put them to use. The upside to having one publisher do both phys and digital editions of your book seems utterly QED to me- it means they are marketing it, and you, in all possible mediums, at the same time, and every sale is a victory for the whole team.
Again, these are examples and thought-experiments off the top of my head. There’s a lot that they don’t account for–such as how a lot of the issues I raise are obviated when we’re talking about a book like, say, Pale Fire, the text of which hasn’t needed proofing or editing in 35 years, can sustain sales on several simultaneous editions, and which is effectively never going out of print.
It is a crooked and dishonorable story that tells how Lin spoke honey-words and peace-words to a stranger who came seeking the low-rule and the low-rent of this kingdom and saying that he would play the sorrow of death and small-life on the lot of us in one single day if his wish was not given. Surely I have never heard (nor have I seen) a man come with low-deed the like of that to Gotham that there was not found for him a man of his own equality. Who has heard honey-talk from Lin before strangers, Lin that is wind-heavy, Lin that is a better man than God? Or who has seen the like of Lin or seen the living semblance of him standing in the world, Lin that could best God at ball-fondling or arresting or fig-eating or at the honeyed discourse of sweet sycophants with jewels and gold for bards, or at the listening of distant harpers in a black hole at pitching? Or where is the living human man who could beat Lin at the making of generous vegan food, at the spearing of expressions, at the magic of thumb-suck, at the shaving of pubic hair, or at the unleashing of long hounds from a golden thong in the full chase, sweet-fingered cornhusker Lin, Lin that could carry an armed intern from Williamsburg to the East Village in the craw of his gut-hung knickers.
this is a really odd cocktail of plagiarism mixed with identity theft and some kind of hurr-durring marketing sheen.
so let’s just balance out the order of the universe, shall we?: http://www.just-pooh.com/tao.html
LOOK FORWARD TO THE READ, GUYS. HONESTLY. I DO.
http://etd.lsu.edu/docs/available/etd-0830102-090058/unrestricted/Anderson_thesis.pdf
Q: If you write your name on the Berlin Wall, can you claim ownership?
A:
You’re that Bat Segundo dude?
It is a crooked and dishonorable story that tells how Lin spoke honey-words and peace-words to a stranger who came seeking the low-rule and the low-rent of this kingdom and saying that he would play the sorrow of death and small-life on the lot of us in one single day if his wish was not given. Surely I have never heard (nor have I seen) a man come with low-deed the like of that to Gotham that there was not found for him a man of his own equality. Who has heard honey-talk from Lin before strangers, Lin that is wind-heavy, Lin that is a better man than God? Or who has seen the like of Lin or seen the living semblance of him standing in the world, Lin that could best God at ball-fondling or arresting or fig-eating or at the honeyed discourse of sweet sycophants with jewels and gold for bards, or at the listening of distant harpers in a black hole at pitching? Or where is the living human man who could beat Lin at the making of generous vegan food, at the spearing of expressions, at the magic of thumb-suck, at the shaving of pubic hair, or at the unleashing of long hounds from a golden thong in the full chase, sweet-fingered cornhusker Lin, Lin that could carry an armed intern from Williamsburg to the East Village in the craw of his gut-hung knickers.
You’re that Bat Segundo dude?
That was terrific. . . and I agree.
It can’t be Ed: no “big word” malapropisms.
That was terrific. . . and I agree.
It can’t be Ed: no “big word” malapropisms.
Erratum: “If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under ‘correctional’ supervision.”
This figure is still shocking but “one adult in 3” would have deserved its own t-shirt.
Thanks, Steven. If it was really 1 in 3, I’m sure I’d be the 1, and hence deprived of web and t shirt privileges.
Erratum: “If those on parole or probation are included, one adult in 31 is under ‘correctional’ supervision.”
This figure is still shocking but “one adult in 3” would have deserved its own t-shirt.
It was pretty cool while it lasted, though…
Thanks, Steven. If it was really 1 in 3, I’m sure I’d be the 1, and hence deprived of web and t shirt privileges.
It was pretty cool while it lasted, though…