Latest news with #TheAtlantic
Winnipeg Free Press
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Winnipeg Free Press
Julia Whelan has narrated 600 audiobooks and counting. So why isn't she paid like it?
Chances are, you've heard Julia Whelan's voice. She's the award-winning narrator behind more than 600 audiobooks by a long list of bestselling authors including Taylor Jenkins Reid,Emily Henry, Michael Crichton, V.E. Schwab and Kristin Hannah. She's also narrated long-form articles for The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. You may have read her own writing, too. Whelan's first novel, 2018's 'My Oxford Year,' has been adapted to a Netflix film, out Friday, starring Sofia Carson. The story actually began as a screenplay by Allison Burnett and had been gestating in development for years. Whelan was brought in to help with the script because she had studied abroad at Oxford her junior year of college. Producers then asked if she thought it would make a good book. 'I was like, 'Nothing has ever wanted to be a book more. Please let me do this,'' she recalls. It ended up an international bestseller. Her second novel, 2022's 'Thank You For Listening,' was critically praised. ('Thank You For Listening' is about a former actor-turned-audiobook narrator who falls in love with another audiobook narrator.) You may have even seen Whelan on TV — she began her career as a child actor, with roles in 'Fifteen and Pregnant' and on the series 'Once and Again.' Despite her various pursuits, though, she has no plans to leave narration behind. 'I feel like I was born to do it,' she said. 'It's everything that I love and that I'm good at and everything I want to be doing.' That's a good thing, because the audiobook industry is growing. Statista projects this year it will reach $9.84 billion because of smartphones, the increased popularity of audio content and people's desire to multitask. Despite the appetite for audiobooks, for narrators, 'the financial aspect makes zero sense,' says Whelan. She's founded her own publishing company, Audiobrary, to help narrators get paid more fairly. Whelan, who has narrated as many as 70 books in one year, spoke to The Associated Press about the audiobook industry, Audiobrary and her own writing. Answers are edited for clarity and brevity. AP: Why did you start your own audiobook publishing company? WHELAN: The only reason I was doing 70 books a year was because that's how many books you have to do when you're first starting out to keep your head above water because the rates are low. It would be OK if there were a kickback for success, but narrators don't get royalties. As we've seen the industry grow and as we've seen the cache of certain narrators expand, and we know listeners will seek out audiobooks that their favorite narrators record. It doesn't make sense to me that we should be cut out of the long-term financial benefit of success. Audiobrary does a profit-share model with writers, who I also feel don't get enough percentage of the pie, and a royalty share for narrators. We are also a direct-to-consumer retail channel, so when you buy directly from us, you're not giving 50-75% of that sale to a retailer. You're giving it directly to the people who made the product. AP: How do you prepare before narrating? WHELAN: I create character lists. I create pronunciation lists, and I do the necessary research for that. The prep time can vary book to book significantly, depending on how complicated the book is. AP: If you feel a cold coming on, do you panic? Do you have to protect your voice? WHELAN: It ruins everything. I'm probably the only person left who wears a mask on a plane at this point, but everything falls apart if I get sick. You're messed up for three or four months. Everything just gets delayed, especially when I was doing 70 books a year, there's no room for error there. AP: There are big-name celebrities who narrate audiobooks. Do you worry about them taking jobs? WHELAN: At this point, there's still enough work to go around and they are doing the books that have the budget frankly to use them. But I think that audiobook fans — not your casual audiobook user, but fans — have favorite narrators and they're going to look for books by those narrators. So, in stunt-casting situations, sometimes someone is incredible at it, and they are perfect for the book. But sometimes it feels like a very craven, just marketing ploy. I don't feel infringed upon by them, but I do worry about a future situation where most of the work is going to AI. I don't lie awake at night worried, but everyone's threatened right now. It's very, very hard to even begin to predict what the future could look like. AP: What do you say to people who are almost sheepish about admit ting to listening to an audiobook instead of reading it? WHELAN: I think the kids would say that it's ableist to say that if you didn't read a book with your eyeballs, then you didn't read it, considering many people have many limitations that would prevent them from physically reading a book. So then are you telling them they've never read a book before? Actual data and studies show that listening to a book actually triggers the same response in the brain as reading it, and that the interpretation and understanding of that book is on par with having read it. AP: When do you see yourself writing another novel? WHELAN: There's been about four ideas that are constantly in rotation, but I think I've narrowed it down. I think I'm ready to at least start exploring one of them at the beginning of next year. AP: Do you think 'Thank You for Listening' could ever be adapted for the screen? WHELAN: I very much think we could. I have said no up to this point because, this time around, I want to be very creatively involved. There's just too many things about audiobooks that someone could get wrong not knowing anything about the industry. I want be involved so I'm willing to hold onto it until the right situation comes along.
Hamilton Spectator
10 hours ago
- Entertainment
- Hamilton Spectator
Julia Whelan has narrated 600 audiobooks and counting. So why isn't she paid like it?
Chances are, you've heard Julia Whelan's voice. She's the award-winning narrator behind more than 600 audiobooks by a long list of bestselling authors including Taylor Jenkins Reid,Emily Henry, Michael Crichton, V.E. Schwab and Kristin Hannah. She's also narrated long-form articles for The New Yorker, The Atlantic and Vanity Fair. You may have read her own writing, too. Whelan's first novel, 2018's 'My Oxford Year,' has been adapted to a Netflix film, out Friday, starring Sofia Carson. The story actually began as a screenplay by Allison Burnett and had been gestating in development for years. Whelan was brought in to help with the script because she had studied abroad at Oxford her junior year of college. Producers then asked if she thought it would make a good book. 'I was like, 'Nothing has ever wanted to be a book more. Please let me do this,'' she recalls. It ended up an international bestseller. Her second novel, 2022's 'Thank You For Listening,' was critically praised. ('Thank You For Listening' is about a former actor-turned-audiobook narrator who falls in love with another audiobook narrator.) You may have even seen Whelan on TV — she began her career as a child actor, with roles in 'Fifteen and Pregnant' and on the series 'Once and Again.' Despite her various pursuits, though, she has no plans to leave narration behind. 'I feel like I was born to do it,' she said. 'It's everything that I love and that I'm good at and everything I want to be doing.' That's a good thing, because the audiobook industry is growing. Statista projects this year it will reach $9.84 billion because of smartphones, the increased popularity of audio content and people's desire to multitask. Despite the appetite for audiobooks, for narrators, 'the financial aspect makes zero sense,' says Whelan. She's founded her own publishing company, Audiobrary, to help narrators get paid more fairly. Whelan, who has narrated as many as 70 books in one year, spoke to The Associated Press about the audiobook industry, Audiobrary and her own writing. Answers are edited for clarity and brevity. AP: Why did you start your own audiobook publishing company? WHELAN: The only reason I was doing 70 books a year was because that's how many books you have to do when you're first starting out to keep your head above water because the rates are low. It would be OK if there were a kickback for success, but narrators don't get royalties. As we've seen the industry grow and as we've seen the cache of certain narrators expand, and we know listeners will seek out audiobooks that their favorite narrators record. It doesn't make sense to me that we should be cut out of the long-term financial benefit of success. Audiobrary does a profit-share model with writers, who I also feel don't get enough percentage of the pie, and a royalty share for narrators. We are also a direct-to-consumer retail channel, so when you buy directly from us, you're not giving 50-75% of that sale to a retailer. You're giving it directly to the people who made the product. AP: How do you prepare before narrating? WHELAN: I create character lists. I create pronunciation lists, and I do the necessary research for that. The prep time can vary book to book significantly, depending on how complicated the book is. AP: If you feel a cold coming on, do you panic? Do you have to protect your voice? WHELAN: It ruins everything. I'm probably the only person left who wears a mask on a plane at this point, but everything falls apart if I get sick. You're messed up for three or four months. Everything just gets delayed, especially when I was doing 70 books a year, there's no room for error there. AP: There are big-name celebrities who narrate audiobooks. Do you worry about them taking jobs? WHELAN: At this point, there's still enough work to go around and they are doing the books that have the budget frankly to use them. But I think that audiobook fans — not your casual audiobook user, but fans — have favorite narrators and they're going to look for books by those narrators. So, in stunt-casting situations, sometimes someone is incredible at it, and they are perfect for the book. But sometimes it feels like a very craven, just marketing ploy. I don't feel infringed upon by them, but I do worry about a future situation where most of the work is going to AI. I don't lie awake at night worried, but everyone's threatened right now. It's very, very hard to even begin to predict what the future could look like. AP: What do you say to people who are almost sheepish about admit ting to listening to an audiobook instead of reading it? WHELAN: I think the kids would say that it's ableist to say that if you didn't read a book with your eyeballs, then you didn't read it, considering many people have many limitations that would prevent them from physically reading a book. So then are you telling them they've never read a book before? Actual data and studies show that listening to a book actually triggers the same response in the brain as reading it, and that the interpretation and understanding of that book is on par with having read it. AP: When do you see yourself writing another novel? WHELAN: There's been about four ideas that are constantly in rotation, but I think I've narrowed it down. I think I'm ready to at least start exploring one of them at the beginning of next year. AP: Do you think 'Thank You for Listening' could ever be adapted for the screen? WHELAN: I very much think we could. I have said no up to this point because, this time around, I want to be very creatively involved. There's just too many things about audiobooks that someone could get wrong not knowing anything about the industry. I want be involved so I'm willing to hold onto it until the right situation comes along.
Atlantic
10 hours ago
- General
- Atlantic
The Birth of the Attention Economy
This is an edition of Time-Travel Thursdays, a journey through The Atlantic 's archives to contextualize the present. Sign up here. Early in the Civil War, Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. announced in The Atlantic that the necessities of life had been reduced to two things: bread and the newspaper. Trying to keep up with what Holmes called the 'excitements of the time,' civilians lived their days newspaper to newspaper, hanging on the latest reports. Reading anything else felt beside the point. The newspaper was an inescapable force, Holmes wrote; it ruled by 'divine right of its telegraphic dispatches.' Holmes didn't think he was describing some permanent modern condition—information dependency as a way of life. The newspaper's reign would end with the war, he thought. And when it did, he and others could return to more high-minded literary pursuits—such as the book by an 'illustrious author' that he'd put down when hostilities broke out. Nearly 40 years after Holmes wrote those words, newspapers were still on the march. Writing in 1900, Arthur Reed Kimball warned in The Atlantic of an ' Invasion of Journalism,' as newspapers' volume and influence grew only more intense. Their readers' intellect, Kimball argued, had been diminished. Coarse language was corrupting speech and writing, and miscellaneous news was making miscellaneous minds. The newspaper-ification of the American mind was complete. The rise of the cheap, daily newspaper in the 19th century created the first true attention economy—an endless churn of spectacle and sensation that remade how Americans engaged with the world. Although bound by the physical limits of print, early newspaper readers' habits were our habits: People craved novelty, skimmed for the latest, let their attention dart from story to story. And with the onset of this new way of being came its first critics. In our current moment, when readers need to be persuaded to read an article before they post about it online, 19th-century harrumphs over the risks of newspaper reading seem quaint. Each new technology since the newspaper—film, radio, television, computers, the internet, search engines, social media, artificial intelligence—has sparked the same anxieties about how our minds and souls will be changed. Mostly, we've endured. But these anxieties have always hinted at the possibility that one day, we'll reach the endgame—the point at which words and the work of the mind will have become redundant. Worries over journalism's invasive qualities are as old as the modern daily newspaper. In New York, where the American variant first took shape in the 1830s, enterprising editors found a formula for success; they covered fires, murders, swindles, scandals, steamboat explosions, and other acts in the city's daily circus. As James Gordon Bennett Sr., the editor of the New York Herald and the great pioneer of the cheap daily, said, the mission was 'to startle or amuse.' Small in size and packed with tiny type, the papers themselves didn't look particularly amusing, but the newsboys selling them in the street were startling enough. Even if you didn't buy a paper, a boy in rags was going to yell its contents at you. These cheap newspapers had relatively modest urban circulations, but they suggested a new mode of living, an acceleration of time rooted in an expectation of constant novelty. Henry David Thoreau and other contrarians saw the implications and counseled the careful conservation of attention. 'We should treat our minds,' Thoreau wrote in an essay posthumously published in The Atlantic, 'that is, ourselves, as innocent and ingenuous children, whose guardians we are, and be careful what objects and what subjects we thrust on their attention.' This included newspapers. 'Read not the Times,' he urged. 'Read the Eternities.' But the problem was only getting worse. The Eternities were steadily losing ground to the Times—and to the Posts, the Standards, the Gazettes, the Worlds, and the Examiners. In the last third of the 19th century, the volume of printed publications grew exponentially. Even as more 'serious' newspapers such as the New-York Tribune entered the marketplace, the cheap daily continued to sell thousands of copies each day. Newspapers, aided by faster methods of typesetting and by cheaper printing, became twice-daily behemoths, with Sunday editions that could be biblical in length. A British observer marveled at the turn of the century that Americans, 'the busiest people in the world,' had so much time to read each day. American commentators of high and furrowed brow worried less that newspapers were being left unread and more that they were actually being devoured. The evidence was everywhere—in snappier sermons on Sundays, in direct and terse orations at colleges, in colloquial expressions in everyday usage, in the declining influence of certain journals and magazines (including The Atlantic). If I may apply what Kimball deplored as 'newspaper directness,' people seemed to be getting dumber. Those who were reared on slop and swill wanted ever more slop and swill—and the newspapers were all too ready to administer twice-daily feedings. Writing in The Atlantic in 1891 on the subject of ' Journalism and Literature,' William James Stillman saw a broad and 'devastating influence of the daily paper' on Americans' 'mental development.' No less grave were the political implications of a populace marinating in half-truths, seeking the general confirmation of what it already believed. In such a market, journalists and their papers had an incentive to perpetuate falsehoods. Was all of this hand-wringing a little too much? Has not one generation predicted the doom of the next with each successive innovation? Socrates warned that writing would weaken thought and give only the appearance of wisdom. Eighteenth-century novels occasioned panic as critics worried that their readers would waste their days on vulgar fictions. And as for newspapers, didn't Ernest Hemingway famously take 'newspaper directness' and make it the basis for perhaps the most influential literary style of the 20th century? Each innovation, even those that risk dimming our broader mental capacity, can stimulate innovations of its own. But at the risk of sounding like those 19th-century critics, this time really does seem different. When machines can so agreeably perform all of our intellectual labors and even fulfill our emotional needs, we should wonder what will become of our minds. No one has to spend much time imagining what we might like to read or pretend to read; algorithms already know. Chatbots, meanwhile, can as readily make our emails sound like Hemingway as they can instruct us on how to perform devil worship and self-mutilation. Thoreau may have never divined the possibility of artificial intelligence, but he did fear minds smoothed out by triviality and ease. He imagined the intellect as a road being paved over—' macadamized,' in 19th-century parlance—'its foundation broken into fragments for the wheels of travel to roll over.' 'If I am to be a thoroughfare,' Thoreau wrote, 'I prefer that it be of the mountain-brooks, the Parnassian streams, and not the town-sewers.'
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
12 hours ago
- Politics
- First Post
Trump suspects Netanyahu prolonging Gaza war for political gain, but unlikely to act: Report
President Trump increasingly suspects that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extending the war in Gaza for political gain and obstructing ceasefire efforts, according to a report, citing two unnamed administration officials read more President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu arrive for a news conference in the East Room of the White House, on Feb. 4, 2025, in Washington. AP File US President Donald Trump increasingly suspects that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extending the war in Gaza for political gain and obstructing ceasefire efforts, according to The Atlantic report, citing two unnamed administration officials. Despite these concerns, the officials said it is unlikely Trump will take any serious action against Netanyahu. A White House official told the publication that 'there is no significant rupture' in the relationship, adding, 'allies can sometimes disagree, even in a very real way.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Prime Minister Netanyahu's stance is complicating President Trump's efforts to stabilise the region and advance trade and business initiatives, reported The Atlantic. According to the report, citing US officials, one reason for envoy Steve Witkoff's current visit to Israel is to conduct an independent review of Israel's aid delivery to Gaza, amid Trump's rising concern over reports of a growing hunger crisis. Despite feeling slighted by Netanyahu, President Trump's frustration has not led to any major change in US policy. He continues to hold Hamas responsible for the latest collapse in ceasefire negotiations and has declined to align with France and the United Kingdom, who this week pledged to recognise a Palestinian state if Israel fails to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza and commit to a peace process. On Thursday morning, seemingly trying to set aside his differences with Netanyahu, Trump wrote on Truth Social: 'The fastest way to end the Humanitarian Crises in Gaza is for Hamas to SURRENDER AND RELEASE THE HOSTAGES!!!' A few weeks ago, President Trump and PM Netanyahu exchanged gestures of symbolic significance: Trump publicly criticised the 'out-of-control' prosecutors handling Netanyahu's corruption trial, while Netanyahu nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize he has long sought. However, the goodwill from these moves quickly faded, overshadowed by deeper tensions between the two leaders. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In recent days, Trump has openly distanced himself from Netanyahu, rejecting his efforts to downplay Gaza's famine. Disturbed by images of starving children, Trump sent envoy Steve Witkoff to pressure Israel on aid access. The White House was also caught off guard by Israeli strikes in Syria and a missile that hit Gaza's only Catholic church. With inputs from agencies
Fox News
15 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre's family says Trump 'should never consider giving Maxwell any leniency'
The family of Jeffrey Epstein accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre is urging President Donald Trump not to consider "any leniency" for Ghislaine Maxwell as she seeks a way out of prison for her role in the disgraced financier's crimes. While speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on Tuesday, Trump revealed Epstein "stole" Giuffre while she was working at his Florida estate decades ago. "I think she worked at the spa," Trump said as he departed Scotland, referring to Giuffre. "He stole her, and by the way, she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever." The revelation further peeled back the curtain on the narrative surrounding Epstein's years of sexual abuse towards underage girls before his suicide in 2019, especially for Giuffre's family, who have spent decades looking for answers. "It makes us ask if [Trump] was aware of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell's criminal actions, especially given his statement two years later that his good friend Jeffrey 'likes women on the younger side, no doubt about it,'" Giuffre's two brothers and her sisters-in-law told The Atlantic. "We and the public are asking for answers; survivors deserve this." For years, Giuffre remained one of the key voices in holding those within Epstein's web accountable before she died by suicide in her Western Australia home in April. Giuffre first came forward publicly with her allegations after an initial investigation into Epstein resulted in a controversial sweetheart deal that ended with the disgraced money manager receiving an 18-month Florida jail sentence. "Virginia cooperated with the authorities," her family said. "She endured death threats, threats against the lives of her children and family, financial ruin, and her physical and mental well-being were destroyed. She never backed down; she hoped that her strength would inspire other survivors to find the courage to come forward." Civil litigation brought by Giuffre alleged she was recruited by Maxwell while working as a spa attendant at Mar-a-Lago in 2000. Her family told the outlet what was supposed to be a fun summer job ended with Giuffre being sex-trafficked. Trump has previously said he was not involved in Epstein's sex crimes. He and Epstein reportedly fell out of touch in 2004 – two years before Epstein's initial arrest – after Trump outbid Epstein on a coastal Florida estate, according to The Palm Beach Post. The president also added this week that he banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago after he was caught poaching employees from Trump's staff – including Giuffre. "He took people," Trump said. "I said, 'Don't do that anymore,' you know, they work for me. And he took beyond that. He took some others. And once he did that, that was the end of him." "President Trump was directly responding to a question posed by a reporter about Ms. Guiffre – he did not bring her up," the White House said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "The fact remains that President Trump kicked Jeffrey Epstein out of his club for being a creep to his female employees." Giuffre's family – Sky and Amanda Roberts, and Danny and Lannette Wilson – told The Atlantic they are still "reeling" from her suicide and are worried about Maxwell's bid for immunity in exchange for information. "The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency," Giuffre's family wrote. Last week, Maxwell took center stage after she met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to answer questions surrounding the case. Days earlier, she was slapped with a subpoena from the House Oversight Committee asking her to testify on Aug. 11. Her attorney has since said she will only testify if granted immunity, which the panel rejected. "If our sister could speak today, she would be most angered by the fact that the government is listening to a known perjurer, a woman who repeatedly lied under oath and will continue to do so as long as it benefits her position," Giuffre's family told The Atlantic, referring to Maxwell. Maxwell is currently serving a 20-year sentence for her role in procuring underage girls for Epstein to sexually abuse. She has recently appealed to Trump to pardon her sentence – a possibility the president has previously said is within his right to consider, but he has not been asked to do so yet. However, a senior administration official told Fox News Digital that "no leniency is being given or discussed. That's just false. The President himself has said that clemency for Maxwell is not something he is even thinking about at this time." Maxwell's attorney and Giuffre's family did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital's request for comment. Maxwell's legal team is also asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal of her 2021 conviction – a decision the court is set to discuss in a private conference on Sept. 29. In light of the recent conversations toying with the possibility of Maxwell receiving an incentive in exchange for her testimony, Giuffre's family is imploring officials to not take the bait, while asking the Trump administration to maintain its promises of accountability and transparency. "The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency," Giuffre's family said. "Maxwell destroyed many young lives, and she was convicted for only a fraction of the crimes she actually committed."
