Amazon Censorship Expands

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Are you naive enough (no insult meant) to think this has never been done before here on MR? By authors, publishers, manufacturers, retailers?

I didn't even know about this site until I was invited to join into the conversation, which I did not do until after the first of the year. Go back and see the date of my first post; you can also check my profile and see I did not sign up with MobileRead until January 4, 2011. How that translates into claiming I started a thread that began weeks prior to my joining escapes me. Could someone please explain it? Do people think I have some time-travel capabilities I'm not aware of? If so, please fill me in.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

This section is from "Rape In Holding Cell 6, volume 1" and is being told by the novel's protagonist, Antony, as he considers telling someone he loves just how crazy he is becoming and how he started being that way.


The MobileRead Moderation team has placed this text inside spoiler tags. Members are advised that the text contains explicit sexual content that may be offensive and not appropriate for all audiences.

Spoiler:

It was when I was fourteen years old -- a kid I sort of knew killed himself. Not because he was gay -- he wasn’t; but that didn’t keep some monstrous brats at school from brutalizing him, anyway. Berating him for being gay. Beating up on him for not being man enough for a fifteen year-old. And not one person did anything about it. Not his parents. Not the bullies’ parents. Not the teachers. Nobody. Nobody cared, not really, ‘cause he was just this skinny little fuck who couldn’t take care of himself -- and had nobody who’d take care of him for him -- until he took matters into his own hands.

What’s sad is, even I made fun of him. Because I was scared they’d start doing that shit to me. And so he was found hanging in his bathroom, one morning. And I didn’t feel bad about it. I felt -- better him than me.

But then I watched all the adults and all the little fucks who’d picked on him act like they’d done nothing wrong. Laugh about it. Make sick cracks about it. And that’s when something cracked open inside me. Something deep that slowly built up this hideous anger. Still, I kept it bottled up, inside, afraid of it.

Until a year later. When a kid outside LA got murdered by a classmate for being gay, and hearing about it scared the fuck out of me, at first. I couldn’t go to school for a week because I was sure that everybody knew that I was a fag, too, and fags kill themselves or get killed and I’d be next and -- and -- .

And then I heard that killer’s attorney start blaming everything on the murdered boy, all but brushing aside the fact that a young life had been taken thanks to hatred -- and the anger boiled up, again. That some motherfuckers would make it seem like -- like how you were born is wrong, and is an excuse for slaughter, and they’d make you scared to be who you are because they can’t handle it -- that was so sickening to me, two weeks after the murdered kid’s funeral I told my mom I was gay.

She told dad and they tried to talk me out of it, of course. Said I was just confused and upset. I was too young to understand what I did and didn’t like. Didn’t work. So they asked me to keep it to myself. People in our town might not be so understanding. And I agreed, but for one reason only -- so I could work with the football team. Because five of the suicide kid’s worst tormentors were on the Varsity Squad.

You see, nobody at school did know I was gay, yet. And I’d already been learning about massage and pressure points and stuff from Aikido and that paramedic. So I got the job to clean up the locker room and make sure the guys had towels when they finished showering and finally got to show coach that I could rub out leg cramps and sore arms when he was too busy. And by the end of the football season, I’d rubbed each of those five assholes down good. And made damn sure every one of them got a woody. Very embarrassing for them, but I laughed and explained it away and they thought everything was fine.

Until we returned to school from Christmas break. That’s when I came out to everyone and quietly told a friend (near some nosy-gossipy girls) that I’d sucked every one of the football bastards off -- though the truth was, I hadn’t. They were all butt-ugly to me. Of course, word was all over campus by the end of the day. A couple of the guys found out and tried to beat me up -- and I got knocked around a bit; they outweighed me by twenty pounds each -- but I slammed into freak-out-pissed-off mode for the first time and broke one guy’s nose and another one’s wrist. Then word spread that they’d been beat up by a fag.

Well -- they couldn’t buy their way onto a college football team, after that, no matter how much they swore it wasn’t true. And that is hell for a high school football star from Texas. I’d crushed their dreams in revenge for a kid I barely knew. And I felt good about it. Which scared me, a little -- because I didn’t think I should have felt that way.

But that wasn’t the end of it. After graduation, three of them joined the military -- Army, Marines -- and got sent to Iraq and Afghanistan. One was killed. Another got hit by an IED -- and his parents are taking care of him, now, because he’s just a couple IQ points above a vegetable. The third, I think he’s on his second deployment. The other two -- one’s a dealer who’s his own best client and the other went to Michigan State to get away from the gossip. Last I heard, he’s the only one doing good -- but he was never allowed near the football team.

And I still felt like this was a job well-done.

This is what my story is about -- anti-gay nonsense coming from society and the legal system, and how Antony determines to fight back in ways that become inappropriate and dangerous. There is no underage sex, just a lie perpetrated by Antony. There is no incest. And in the book, rape is presented as a soul-destroying action, not something just to titillate. This section does lead into a very intense sex scene between the adult Antony and Jake, the guy he loves, but is not that much more intense than something you'd find in a Jackie Collins novel.

Just to emphasize my point.

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

at the time it was. (in reference to a sign stating "No Irish Need Apply")

WHAT?!

[gmw]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?

Don't complain, they've just done you a favour. Where most people would have just skipped over the excessive text of the post, now you'll have lots of people hitting Show and wading through it looking for the "explicit sexual content".

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by david_e

First he stated that Amazon had no right to remove the book. When over and over again it was pointed out how they were well within their legal rights to remove the book he finally concedes this position only to take up a more ludicrous one, that Amazon had a MORAL obligation (post #390) to sell his books.

The moral road leads him nowhere so he then explains how he has been maligned,

He goes on about how he and his work have been damaged by this smear. The only problem is that if you listen to exactly what the reporter said, and I did, she referred to the authors book, and the two other books that were offered as examples, as 'racy content'. "...but there's still plenty of racy content for sale despite the company's clear policy of prohibiting pornography. We found such titles as (insert title here)..." Not once was the book referred to as pornography.

So much for those damages you were counting on...

I find it quite understandable that his publisher wishes he would not participate in public discussions about this issue. The idea of someone who earns some, or any part, of their livelihood from writing, from the use of words, to be so ignorant as to not understand the definition of censorship is appalling. For this same person to misquote a reporter in the hopes of swaying public opinion in his favor, to enable him to further his pretense and continue to play the tragic victim, is pathetic.

The book was linked to the word "pornography" by the context. Pay attention.

As for the rest of your snotty comments

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by gmw

Don't complain, they've just done you a favour. Where most people would have just skipped over the excessive text of the post, now you'll have lots of people hitting Show and wading through it looking for the "explicit sexual content".

Well then...just to add to the terror one might have of this content, I DO use the "f" bomb a lot in it , and reference is made to what happens to most males during a massage , and my "hero"...uh..."anti-hero"...well, maybe I should just call him Antony...spreads a lie that destroys a number of lives even though none of the people that lie touches actually did anything to him, thus foreshadowing what happens later in the book.

Now you know why I have a wild cat as my avatar. Just feed me raw beef and call me untamed. Roawer.

[Elfwreck]

The MobileRead Moderation team has placed this text inside spoiler tags. Members are advised that the text contains explicit sexual content that may be offensive and not appropriate for all audiences.

Originally Posted by jamthecat

Seriously? SERIOUSLY!?

Yep; Mobileread tends to the G-to-PG rating. Profanity sometimes gets edited out of posts, with a note that it's been removed. Directly insulting posts are sometimes edited. (Kinda depends on how erudite the insults are; the more verbally adept the phrasing, the less likely it is to be edited.) Racy bookcovers also get edited out.

Think of the forum as a set of discussions taking place in someone's living room, where the five- or twelve-year-old kids might wander through at any time. (Because they might. MR is *high* in the google ratings for any ebook topic.) We've had open discussion about explicit topics, but dodge around the specific words that are prone to trigger net-nanny software and the like.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by jamthecat

WHAT?!

it was in reference to a "no Irish need apply" sign that someone had posted. when that was applicable, that was business as usual

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by gmw

Some interesting thoughts Caleb. I suggest that self-censorship is happening automatically anyway - even on this forum, despite some fairly emphatic posts. I would argue that some self-censorship is good and appropriate. If we expect to live harmoniously within society we must learn to respect the sensitivities of others and modulate our behaviour accordingly. Not that we can't say what we mean, but that we can find ways to say things without being so abrasive or confrontational. Good authors find ways to say things without discouraging readers from participating, yes this is a form of self-censorship, but it is also part of living in a mixed society.

As I suggested earlier, I think the title of one of the dropped books "How To Rape ..." actually singles it out for exactly the attention it received - I also believe this was intentional on the part of the author. Such a title automatically excludes some readers, possibly some readers who may otherwise have picked up the book and found it to be of value once they read the actual text, but if the author is more interested in getting attention, bad as much as good, then encouraging people to read the book is a secondary issue.

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

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it was in reference to a "no Irish need apply" sign that someone had posted. when that was applicable, that was business as usual

So was not allowing blacks to sit in the front of the bus or eat at certain lunch counters. And I guess since it WAS business as usual, that's all just fine and dandy. After all, businesses can do what they like, right? After all, they were just doing what everybody else was doing. Even Ron Paul thinks that's the way it should be.

Oh, and let's not forget the fact that 100 years ago women couldn't vote or have their own checking accounts or own property if they were married or get divorced except under EXTREME circumstances, even if their husbands beat them. That was business as usual, too.

So was shipping the Jews off to Auschwitz, for a while.

Yeah, great comment. Lovely. In the true spirit of humanity. You should be proud to have posted it.

[jamthecat]

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.

[jamthecat]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Yep; Mobileread tends to the G-to-PG rating. Profanity sometimes gets edited out of posts, with a note that it's been removed. Directly insulting posts are sometimes edited. (Kinda depends on how erudite the insults are; the more verbally adept the phrasing, the less likely it is to be edited.) Racy bookcovers also get edited out.

Think of the forum as a set of discussions taking place in someone's living room, where the five- or twelve-year-old kids might wander through at any time. (Because they might. MR is *high* in the google ratings for any ebook topic.) We've had open discussion about explicit topics, but dodge around the specific words that are prone to trigger net-nanny software and the like.

This is going to be hard. I haven't been PG since I WAS 13.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by caleb72

... OK - maybe I'm being frightfully idealistic, but at least in this discussion I wouldn't find idealism out of place.

I'm not about to knock idealism.

There seems to have always(?) been the belief that true art and commercial success are mutually exclusive. I think that the potential for self-censorship is where that belief comes from. There may be occasions where an idea's time has come, and it will gain commercial success without being specially written/painted/sculpted for acceptance by the wider public, but I think such occasions are the exceptions that prove the rule. The more usual situation, I think, is that where an artist has something they wish to express they have to choose between saying it the way they want to say it, and finding a way to say it in a way that may reach a wider audience. Personally I believe both forms of artistic expression are real and potentially very good, each with its own advantages, but often the two are mutually exclusive. I don't see this changing any time soon.

However I wouldn't want to compare true artistic endeavour with the relatively crass commercial stunt of giving something an offensive title just to garner attention. "Rape" in a title is not necessarily offensive in and of itself, "How To Rape" is rather more confrontational, and if it's not an instruction manual it's hard to see why the title is appropriate.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by gmw

I'm not about to knock idealism.

There seems to have always(?) been the belief that true art and commercial success are mutually exclusive. I think that the potential for self-censorship is where that belief comes from. There may be occasions where an idea's time has come, and it will gain commercial success without being specially written/painted/sculpted for acceptance by the wider public, but I think such occasions are the exceptions that prove the rule. The more usual situation, I think, is that where an artist has something they wish to express they have to choose between saying it the way they want to say it, and finding a way to say it in a way that may reach a wider audience. Personally I believe both forms of artistic expression are real and potentially very good, each with its own advantages, but often the two are mutually exclusive. I don't see this changing any time soon.

I think you're probably right there - which is a pity in a way.

However I wouldn't want to compare true artistic endeavour with the relatively crass commercial stunt of giving something an offensive title just to garner attention. "Rape" in a title is not necessarily offensive in and of itself, "How To Rape" is rather more confrontational, and if it's not an instruction manual it's hard to see why the title is appropriate.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the title even though it's clearly provocative.

I can even see a kind of artistic merit in the title depending on the story, but I do have a habit of using fairly harsh imagery in my own writing:

Spoiler:

Like a ravaged woman I lie
Bleeding on the pavement
Impregnated with the sperm
Of timeless hatred

Although what I wrote wasn't completely over the top, I've decided people can choose whether or not they want to read it. The imagery is a little unsavoury.

Regards
Caleb

[gmw]

Originally Posted by caleb72

... Personally, I don't have a problem with the title even though it's clearly provocative.

I can even see a kind of artistic merit in the title depending on the story, but I do have a habit of using fairly harsh imagery in my own writing: ...

Harsh imagery has it's place, poetry is often quite harsh, it can be part of its power. I'm even willing to believe the author's assertion that his work is not pornography, and for my own part the words of the title do nothing except turn me away, but I can easily see how others could find (even just the first three words of) the title offensive. The title of a book is it's public face, it should be presentable in the forums on which it will be shown - I think this title fails that test. But, having said that, it was the author's choice, just as it's Amazon's choice to stop selling it.