On censorship

[Amphiaraus]

All interested:

What a world this has become.

I've just poked through a thread on these here message boards wherein the opening poster wondered aloud why one of King's recent novels contained so much profanity, disturbing themes and blasphemy. Wouldn't it be possible, the poster asked, to place the equivalent of a warning on the cover (the OP had received an e-version of King's novel) that would announce that these sorts of things were to found inside. Going one better, the OP asked if a sanitized version of King's novel was available, wherein all of these things were edited out.

So far the response of the message board's community has been predictably balanced; kudos to all for not blowing their stacks after having their lids flipped.

I guess we all realize that there are folks who love their "litterachure" sanitized: No use of the term 'nigger' in Huckleberry Finn; no reference to slavery in 'Roots'; no reference to war in 'War and Peace' and so on and so on. More often than not, these same sorts of folks believe an author like J.D. Salinger was out to corrupt the morals of American youth, and therefore it made perfect sense that his books ought to be banned in all public schools; that Salman Rushdie ought to be put to death for offending Allah and Islam by mentioning an inconvenient fact of history; that Alexander Solzhenitsyn, winner of the Nobel Prize for literature, ought to have been shot for questioning the excesses and insanity of authoritarianism (and even today, in Putin's Russia, journalists that attempt to expose the excesses and corruption of government are considered fair game for execution by Putin's ultra-nationalist allies). Just like me, folks who see merit in sanitization are entitled to their opinions. Just like me, they can exercise their choice not to purchase (and read) things that are likely to upset their sensibilities. Unlike me, however, they *believe* they're absolutely and unquestionably justified in dictating to others what that range of choice ought to be.

King himself has addressed this sort of issue a long time ago in an essay titled, 'Book-Banners: Adventure in Censorship is Stranger Than Fiction'. It makes worthwhile reading, and I'm certain it's posted somewhere around here. Whether you agree with any of his observations or not is likely a moot point. But his closing comment pretty much sums up what the real situation is. It reads: " If there's one American belief I hold above all others, it's that those who would set themselves up in judgment on matters of what is "right" and what is "best" should be given no rest; that they should have to defend their behavior most stringently. No book, record, or film should be banned without a full airing of the issues. As a nation, we've been through too many fights to preserve our rights of free thought to let them go just because some prude with a highlighter doesn't approve of them."

Freedom of thought is inextricably linked to the freedom of expression. You cannot have one without the other. True, you may not always agree with what others think and feel, and sometimes the opinions of others will prove themselves downright inane, if not offensive. But herein is the challenge of being a thinking human being and a responsible citizen. We're all attempting to make the wisest choices possible when it comes to moral, ethical and legal issues, and there's no offense in making a suggestion that's entirely based on one's own faith. But perhaps instead of putting the cart before the horse, one should attempt to exercise better judgement by *thinking* before acting.

Looking forward to reading the responses of others!

[Moderator]

That's how we roll here--most of the time. Hot Topics can get testy on occasion. :smile2:

The book banners essay is posted here. (http://www.stephenking.com/library/essay/book-banners_adventure_in_censorship_is_stranger_than_f iction_the.html)

[JordyVerrill]

I don't think the person who made that thread was asking for the government to come in and ban Under The Dome, just asking if there was a clean version of it available, and asking for Stephen King to stop using profanity. That's not censorship, that's trying to get market forces to react to what you, as a consumer, want. If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.

[Moderator]

I don't think the person who made that thread was asking for the government to come in and ban Under The Dome, just asking if there was a clean version of it available, and asking for Stephen King to stop using profanity. That's not censorship, that's trying to get market forces to react to what you, as a consumer, want. If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.

No, they wouldn't because he wouldn't agree to it with already published books and would not change future works just to accommodate if he felt by doing so he was compromising his being authentic to his writing.

[Shasta]

No, they wouldn't because he wouldn't agree to it with already published books and would not change future works just to accommodate if he felt by doing so he was compromising his being authentic to his writing.

I agree with this 100%. If an author wants to write something they should, and not just for the sake of more sales. Writing is art. If you don't like it, don't read it.

I received a free book on my kindle recently. I read it. Then I read that the author had found god and re-written the book to take out the sex scenes. The entire book was about how this girl hit rock bottom because she did anything for drugs. I'm not sure what was left of the book....

Anyway, this was his choice and I respect that. I also respect my own choice not to read the sanitized version.

A book it not like a video game. Even online you look at content and see what's inside. There is no need for warnings and labels or anything.

You can also Google any author you want and there will be a million things that will come up about what they write. It's not to hard to figure out if it would be something that they want to read or not.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I read Fifty Shades of Grey. I was traumatized the ENTIRE time. Did I blame the author? No! I knew what I was getting into.

[PatInTheHat]

That's not censorship, that's trying to get market forces to react to what you, as a consumer, want. If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.
Ah, pouting I believe it used to be called, so some o' that whiny squeaky wheel gets the grease kinda action, that would markedly do it, ya reckon':eyebrow:?

[Amphiaraus]

That's not censorship, that's trying to get market forces to react to what you, as a consumer, want. If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.

I think this is the same sort of rationale organizations such as The Moral Majority, One Million Moms and The American Family Association employ in their seemingly never-ending crusade to impose their highly idiosyncratic values on everyone else, suggesting it's all matter of shaping, guiding or educating demand (a tact Putin has also employed when discussing the irksome 'Pussy Riot').

The merits and ethics of this particular rationale are as debatable as the merits and ethics associated with free market economics, faith, censorship and art, and a great deal of the positions adopted by proponents (on either side of the argument) come down to arguments based on one's perspective. Actual resolution of these sorts of arguments is rare, but compromise isn't. It's for this reason the position of "Let folks decide for themselves" seems to prevail, but not triumph, most often.

As for an artist or writer that's willing to allow market forces to decide the final form their product... well, I suppose that accounts for the lowest common denominators that lurk within reality TV, populism in politics and televangelism. Thank goodness there are folks that stick with their principles, and are driven to produce stuff - books, ideas, products - that they honestly know will likely never be a huge commericial success but will be a huge hit with some widely-scattered niche. I say, Snuggle blankets for everyone! And thank you, King, for taking a risk oh, those many years ago, and stickin' with the writin' of creepy stories. John D. MacDonald, bless him, was right about you.

[atomicinchworm]

People need to take responsibility for their own actions. I read Fifty Shades of Grey. I was traumatized the ENTIRE time. Did I blame the author? No! I knew what I was getting into.

To be fair, Shasta, you should blame the author for writing and the publisher for barely editing the thing. The writing in that book is just terrible, not to mention, pinched almost entirely from not good source material (Twilight). Btw, are you familiar with http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.com/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html ? You might appreciate her efforts.

I have to agree that no author should be pressured to release a sanitized version of their work. If you don't want to read it, don't. Simple as that. If you want to read the work, suck it up, buttercup.

[kingricefan]

Carrie- The Edited and Cleaned-up Version:

Chris says ' Carrie, you're not like the rest of us.'
Carrie says 'Stop saying that. It's not nice.'

The End

Yep, not much of a story or lessons to be learned there, eh? :eyebrow: :laugh:

[GNTLGNT]

If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.

...well, if they'd just keep their dirty lilttle mitts washed-they WOULD be clean versions....nothin' bespoils a nice virgin novel like pizza grease enchanced fingerprints...and I know hand cleaner is available at the market...

[JordyVerrill]

No, they wouldn't because he wouldn't agree to it with already published books and would not change future works just to accommodate if he felt by doing so he was compromising his being authentic to his writing.

Well, yeah, you're right. Stephen King wouldn't, but if there was a new author or an author who doesn't have a lot of pull who had just signed a publishing deal and their publisher came to them and said they wanted to release a clean version of their book, they'd probably go along with it.

And I'm not talking about a few voices here or there asking for clean versions, I'm talking about a major up swell of people looking for clean versions... the kind of which will never happen so this is all hypothetical anyway.

[fushingfeef]

As a parent I sometimes will hear a a song that my kids like musically but the lyrics contain words or notions that I don't want to hear my kids repeating. I'm not against buying them a cleaned-up version of the song if one is available. I don't consider this to be censorship. I sometimes will tell my kids that they're not hearing the original version of the song--I'll tell them it's the kid-friendly version, and the reasons why I don't want them to hear the original until they're older.

[Moderator]

Well, yeah, you're right. Stephen King wouldn't, but if there was a new author or an author who doesn't have a lot of pull who had just signed a publishing deal and their publisher came to them and said they wanted to release a clean version of their book, they'd probably go along with it.

And I'm not talking about a few voices here or there asking for clean versions, I'm talking about a major up swell of people looking for clean versions... the kind of which will never happen so this is all hypothetical anyway.

You're right, a first-time writer might be willing to edit (many have!) their material if that was the condition for publishing.

As for your other scenario--possibly, but I think there's too much precedent for protection of first amendment rights to have that happen not to mention that I don't see the majority of our society, for better or worse, going in that direction. There are publishing houses that cater to genre specific audiences and if there was a market for more sanitized versions of books, I suspect that would be an area that publishing companies would be happy to accommodate. Different strokes for different folks kind of thing and enough folks with tastes that aren't offended by profanity to keep publishing books that contain it as well.

[Amphiaraus]

...a first-time writer might be willing to edit (many have!) their material if that was the condition for publishing.

Editorial emendations are rarely - very rarely - acts of censorship. By definition, censorship is the arbitrary suppression of material that is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by some controlling body or authority. Of course self-censorship exists too, and it's very likely a first-time writer will err on the side of caution (if only to avoid breaking the law or collapsing into poor taste)... which makes one wonder how Bret Easton Ellis managed to get his stuff out into the real world. :smile2:

[PatInTheHat]

“Never use a big word when a little filthy one will do.”...Johnny Carson:love:

[JordyVerrill]

You're right, a first-time writer might be willing to edit (many have!) their material if that was the condition for publishing.

As for your other scenario--possibly, but I think there's too much precedent for protection of first amendment rights to have that happen not to mention that I don't see the majority of our society, for better or worse, going in that direction. There are publishing houses that cater to genre specific audiences and if there was a market for more sanitized versions of books, I suspect that would be an area that publishing companies would be happy to accommodate. Different strokes for different folks kind of thing and enough folks with tastes that aren't offended by profanity to keep publishing books that contain it as well.

Well, it wouldn't really be a first amendment issue since it wouldn't be the government forcing the publisher to censor the book, it would be the publisher saying "Wow, we have 2 million people saying they'll buy the book if we take out all the curse words. Let's take them out". Again, that is extremely unlikely to heppen, but if it did, most not too well established authors would most likely be happy to go along with it so they could sell 2 million books.

[blunthead]

I don't think the person who made that thread was asking for the government to come in and ban Under The Dome, just asking if there was a clean version of it available, and asking for Stephen King to stop using profanity. That's not censorship, that's trying to get market forces to react to what you, as a consumer, want. If enough people started asking for clean versions of Stephen King books, the market would react and they would be made available.Asking, expecting, demanding someone stop using profanity is censorship. The idea of some things being dubbed over, as in movies, doesn't bother me, as long as the originals remain available, even if I myself don't care for them. We must remain a free people. I'm assuming we all know what is profane, though, thus making an a$$ out of u and me. The dangerous powers always define these terms according to their own belief systems and not for the purpose of protecting anyone or anything except their power. The Nazis banned all kind of beautiful art because it didn't fit their idea of art. Jews could not conceivably create art in their self-limiting, perverse view. What resulted was banality, not art. I choose "profanity" over perversity and banality.

[Shasta]

Btw, are you familiar with http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.com/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html ? You might appreciate her efforts.



I can't to the "This site contains adult content" part and quickly clicked off. I can't handle anymore!!!

See. I can self-censor.

[Shasta]

I choose "profanity" over perversity and banality.

Yes. Absolutely, yes.

[atomicinchworm]

LOL. She is a romance author. To be fair, most of the "adult content" is curse words. I promise I wouldn't link to a porn site without a warning. ;)

[Shasta]

LOL. She is a romance author. To be fair, most of the "adult content" is curse words. I promise I wouldn't link to a porn site without a warning. ;)

Anything having to do with S*X makes me squeamish. It was a MIRACLE that I read Fifty Shades. Okay.... maybe torture is the more accurate word.

Yes, I'm a prude.

[GNTLGNT]

And I'm not talking about a few voices here

...on this site you are...

[atomicinchworm]

I should probably go ahead and admit that I am the kind of person who is not and will never be offended by excess cursing or excess sex or excess violence. (I think horror movies are funny, for example.)

Thinking about censoring someone else's ideas would never even figure into my thick skull, so the idea of other people wanting to do is crazy to me.

Don't want your kids watching/reading filth? Then control what they buy and pay attention. It's not like there isn't a whole genre of books specifically designed for kids/teenagers or anything. Don't want to read or watch it yourself? Then don't, no one is making you. Chances are good that the material wouldn't really be something you would be interested in anyway.

Maybe I just believe in self accountability. And believing what ever you want, but at the same time, not trying to force that opinion on anyone else.

As to the scenario that you posit, with millions rising up asking for censored books, I think equally as many would tell them to shut up and read the thousands of other books written with them in mind. Or they would tell them to act like an adult and skip over the bits they don't like.

[Shasta]

Maybe I just believe in self accountability.

This is, like, my favorite thing. And SO many people are missing it.