Quote:
Originally Posted by caleb72
I agree with many things you're saying here. Self-censorship is not automatically a bad thing. I do also believe the title "How to Rape a Straight Guy" is an extremely confrontational title.
However, the fact that this title excludes people is exactly the reason I wouldn't imagine it would be necessary to pull it from the shelves - unless shelf space was a significant factor in the retailers ability to make a living.
Confrontation in art isn't exactly a rare thing and people tend to stay away from those works that are likely to offend them - or this is what I'd like to think.
When I type my responses on this forum I'm self-censoring significantly as I'm maintaining a discourse with a large number of people I'm not really familiar with. I sacrifice some freedom of expression to maintain a civilised discussion.
However, when I write lyrics to my songs or poetry or if I were to put out a book I would not want to feel like I had to self-censor to be heard/read. I would completely expect a number of people to avoid my works like the proverbial plague if the material was confrontational enough - but I'd still expect to be able to reach those who are not completely put off by this aspect.
If I'm publishing just out of the desire to publish and not turning my art into a living as well, I wouldn't care at all that Amazon would remove my items from sale - chances are I would sell from my own website in these cases anyway. However, if I also wanted to make a living out of my art and I knew that the largest portion of income would come from Amazon, I would be truly upset that I'd have to compromise the art for the sake of my living.
This concept is nothing new of course. Publishers, movie and record studios etc.. are already having this kind of effect on artists in some cases. But as we move towards profitable(?) self-publishing and the ability to reach out more readily to readers all over the world, I like to put on my cap of idealism. Maybe we can unfetter art a bit more when you don't have the retailer's premium shelf-space and too many profit-making middle layers to consider. Maybe we can let the audience pick and choose what they want to read and experience.
The author will be able to maximise his/her potential market (audience) and the market itself will choose with its wallet whether or not it wants to partake of the product.
I mean - do we really need to be protected from books with "rape" in the title - as an example? If you find it too confrontational you're not likely to go any further.
OK - maybe I'm being frightfully idealistic, but at least in this discussion I wouldn't find idealism out of place.
Regards
Caleb
|
I can't. My characters would stop talking to me. And I know that sounds crazy, but reality is -- that's how I write. I follow my characters wherever they want to go and let them decide what they want told and not told. I don't shut anything off. I just plain can't. The story would fall apart on me.
The closest I will come to self-censorship is actually depicting sex under the legal age. I don't do pedophilia and despise those who promote it, including those who helped pedophiles get away with their crimes (read Catholic Church hierarchy here). As an example, in one short story that burst out of me, a thirteen year old boy is assaulted by a priest -- but I don't go into detail. The story is about his emotional turmoil afterwards and how it crushes him and forms him even as the adults around him rush to protect his assailant. And that one -- it's not published. I don't even know where I would send it; it's very bleak and dark.
No question my work's already gotten me into trouble, but I'll be damned if I'll back down. My stories are what they are and the titles are right for them, and if anyone misrepresents them, I'm gonna scream.
And if people don't like that, it's just plain too bad.