Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Children’s Book Writer Needs to Grow Up

In what passes for a hot controversy in the publishing industry, Patricia Polacco continues to milk her speaking engagement termination by McGraw-Hill for all the publicity she can muster. One place she posted her statement was truthout.org, the dubious website that still insists Karl Rove has been indicted, although no other media outlet has been able to confirm (and surely not from a lack of desire). There she modestly brags about her insistence to deliver a partisan speech which she admits McGraw-Hill did not contract her for: “I have to admit that I have a certain amount of pride in taking this stand on your behalf.” A venue that Howard Kurtz finds lacking in credibility is about right for her immature hysterics.

Yes immature is a harsh term, but it is sadly fitting in the case of some of her statements. From her website:

Their official position is: “Patricia Polacco did not fulfill her contract to us, therefore her programs were cancelled” ”the company cancelled Polacco’s speaking engagements only after officials learned that she wasn’t willing to keep her remarks limited to the subjects covered in her contract””Patricia Polacco CHOSE not to honor her contract”

I CHOSE??? HOW COULD I CHOOSE NOT TO APPEAR WHEN MY CHOICE WAS TAKEN FROM ME BY SRA/McGRAW HILL’S CANCELATION? I WAS NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULFILL THE CONTRACT. IT WAS CANCELLED OUT FROM UNDER ME!!!! SRA/McGRAW HILL MADE ALL OF THE CHOICES HERE! THEY EFFECTIVELY REMOVED ANY OF MY CHOICES WHEN THEY ACTED AND CANCELLED THE APPEARANCE.


The overly dramatic capitalization and exclamation points would likely embarrass the average pre-teen. Polacco admits she signed a contract for a non-partisan speech she had no intention of giving. She tries to gloss over this unprofessional act with forced “cuteness:”

As far as the SRA/McGraw Hill contract is concerned, obviously I signed it January of 2006. I have never disputed this. I am, however, ashamed to admit that I did not read this contract, nor do I have any memory of ever signing it. Especially in view of the fact that Buchannan and Associates was the ONLY entity that my staff was dealing with concerning the IRA appearance. They assumed, as did I, that Buchannan and Associates represented the IRA.

If this makes me a complete idiot…then I will take the heat on this. I sign a stack of documents every single day. In the interest of saving time, my assistant simply puts the stack of documents, letters, and missives in front of me, leafs through, exposing only the signature pages, points at the signature line, and I simply sign them period. I never see any of these contracts with the exception of only the signature page. I do them so quickly that I pay no attention…I just sign my name. Appearance contracts are usually so straight-forward and uncomplicated that they don’t warrant severe scrutiny…again, if this makes me a blithering, drooling idiot, I take the hit again.


Indeed. Polacco wants to pretend she is the victim of censorship, but as she volubly demonstrates, that clearly is not the case. Censorship involves forcibly suppressing speech. However, the First Amendment no more guarantees her a paid podium to grind her political axe at the expense of McGraw-Hill, than it entitles me to be paid to bore the same audience with a gloriously detailed history of jazz discography.

In truth it seems money is what really motivates Polacco in all this, as she spends a great deal of time in her statement claiming McGraw-Hill owes her $5,000. So much for principles. Whether she collects is a matter for the lawyers. As for her disingenuous claims of censorship, Polacco should just grow up.