The Trouble With Censorship by K. Piet

I've been meaning to address this topic myself for some time, just hadn't gotten around to it. So when I saw this recent post, I was immediately interested in hearing what the author had to say. Having read it, I more than agree with her opinions, and I am re-posting it here, with permission. Thanks to K. Piet, marketing director of Storm Moon Press, for sharing this with us. There is a lot of food for thought here.


  (Special Note: The following post was originally intended for a review blog here in the erotic romance community. While they originally agreed to host us during this mini censorship blog tour, they recanted the offer after reading the post and seeing the topics that surround the theme of censorship, citing that it wasn't a good fit for their blog. Fluffy or moderate fiction is never censored, so this blog post, by necessity, takes you to the fringe, to the edge of the genre, where things get a little less comfortable. A post on censorship can do nothing less than tackle these themes, and we thank this blog for appreciating and embracing that. Without futher ado, please enjoy the post!)

 As long as people have been writing things down, there have also been people trying to say what is and isn't appropriate for people to read. When it comes to erotic fiction, this is especially true. What is permissible? What is too explicit? What is too kinky to be acceptable for a given audience? Do publishers need to warn or label their books a certain way, or are the themes simply unacceptable, even if they are labeled? Censorship is a topic that isn't about to go away when it comes to fiction, especially fiction that in any way showcases the varied reality of human sexuality.

 In my experiences, especially with our Fraternal Devotion anthology at Storm Moon Press, there are always going to be some people who don't want to read your book. All of us at our press knew there would be a limited audience for our collection of brother incest short stories (duh), but what we weren't prepared for were all the hurdles and hoops we would have to jump through to get the book out in print and distributed. Some distribution channels have strict rules about content, and they're perfectly within their rights to work that way. The trouble comes when those rules are only applied to books the higher ups don't like, rather than systematically applied to all titles containing the 'objectionable' content. When companies get into that tug-o-war situation, there are a few things that I wish they would keep in mind:





  A Fictional Act Isn't Real

 Oh, there will be a ton of debate on the role of fiction in shaping the minds of the public and being responsible or not responsible for the actions of people in reality, but when you keep it simple, the fact is that an act written in a work of fiction is, by definition, not real. Fiction provides a very unique playground in which many themes can be explored in relative safety. Taboo topics typically have a home in fiction, and that includes a lot of things that will push the boundaries of readers, be it incestuous content, harsher BDSM practices, or full-out non-consensual and dubious consent fiction. In the real world, such things would be looked down upon quite a lot (e.g. non-con situations would be rape, no ifs, ands, or buts about it), but fiction allows us to divorce the acts from reality and enjoy them in ways we definitely wouldn't in the context of reality. Fictional acts cannot be judged in the same terms that those same acts in reality are. That would make the fiction real in a way it simply isn't.

The Market Typically Regulates Itself

 When it comes to 'questionable material' in fiction, it strikes me as interesting that companies state there is no market for it, and then pull it from production. Pulling it from distribution wouldn't be necessary if there was no market for that fiction, right? I think the fear is that there is a market for the fiction that some people find inappropriate. The flip side of the statement 'There will always be someone who dislikes your work' is that there will also always be someone out there who does like your work. The fear that there are readers who enjoy content others don't is sometimes what keeps books off the shelves. The trouble is, there is a legitimate market for many of those topics. Incestuous content, as an example, is a legitimate kink in the fiction community. You see a lot of daddy-daughter kink (Big and little play when it comes to role-playing) in the het erotica community. And twincest kink has been popular for a long time (I first became a fan in the context of anime and in the Lord of the Rings fanfiction community). There is a market for books like Fraternal Devotion.

 The logical move for companies is to simply let the market regulate itself. If there is truly no market for the fiction that is provided by publishers (or even self-published authors who put their work out all on their lonesome), then no one will buy the book, no hype will be generated, and those authors won't make money off their work, which for some, will be enough of a deterrent to writing more fiction like it in the future. If, on the other hand, there is a market for the kink or taboo that some find 'objectionable', then the fiction will find that market, and those who don't like it will usually ignore it. The market drives itself. Those who don't like the material in a book (assuming it is clearly labeled as having said material) will usually not bother buying, and that's just as well. Most writers don't want people to buy their book when those people know right off the bat that they won't enjoy it. Let the books find their audiences or let them fade into obscurity.

Inconsistency Makes You Look Incompetent

Every company out there has its own set of rules. When it comes to distributors like Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and All Romance eBooks, they all have rules against specific topics being included in the fiction that they distribute. This is normal. This is perfectly acceptable. The trouble is, these rules are very seldom imposed consistently across the board. Incest is permissible if it is non-consensual, forced on siblings or other family members in extraordinary circumstances, an extension of torture, etc. Non-consensual is fine, but the minute you have two siblings consenting to having sex with one another, then people freak out and demand it be censored. Rape and violence abound in erotic fiction as well as other genres like suspense/thriller and horror. All manner of torture is allowed in graphic detail, but that consensual golden showers scene? Oh, that's just going too far.

 There is a certain double standard in many policies, not so much in the way they are written for distributors, but in the way they are enforced. For the most part, they aren't enforced at all, but the moment you mix erotic content, especially if it's GLBT erotic content, with any of the topics that might be skirting the comfort zones of some readers, you wind up with a suppression notice and have to find another place to take your fiction, no matter how legitimate it is or how big an audience is looking forward to purchasing it. It's not that the policy is problematic, but the lack of consistency in its enforcement certainly is, and that kind of inconsistency just makes the company look silly. Now, I'm not saying that people will stop going to Amazon or Barnes & Noble just because they're inconsistent with their policies and censor books almost arbitrarily, but it still doesn't make them look good. When the market could theoretically regulate itself, their inconsistent regulation through unclear policies isn't doing them any favors. In fact, it's making them miss out on potential sales for legitimate titles containing legitimate kinks enjoyed by legitimate people.

 That's a lot of legit, and it makes me sad that so many distributors of fiction don't keep an open mind and try to be inclusive of fetishes, kinks, and taboo topics, things they might not completely understand but at least could see have substantial audiences if they took an honest look. The refusal to carry such titles when there's no reason that stands up to scrutiny means they're censoring.

 But only titles that freak the mysterious 'them' out.

 Luckily, there will be publishers who keep their doors open to the taboo and the unusual. Tentacles, incest, non-con... Those sorts of themes might not have the huge audiences that your traditional romance novels have, but they still have audiences, and I hope that those audiences manage to get their hands on the books that they love, even if they have to go through unconventional distributors or through the publishers' websites. It might not be the most convenient thing, but it's what we have at the moment. We can only hope that legitimate kinks are treated more fairly in the future.

K. Piet is the Marketing Director of Storm Moon Press and author of Making Ends Meetand 'On the Edge', which is included in the Fraternal Devotion anthology. She can be found on Twitter @k_piet or on her blog.

On Censorship, Justice, and Irony - and sandwiches!

By now a lot of you know about the escalating PayPal brouhaha. This financial institution has taken upon itself the position of moral arbiter and are strong arming sites such as Bookstrand and others to comply with their fascist demands - or else. I'm blogging on that subject today at my friend Margaret West's blog - if you want join in the fray, go there. I'm going to discuss other things here.

Top Chef Texas is down to the final three, but I've been too disheartened to blog about it since the show before last when two bad things happened - as I feared, Bev was brought back into the competition via the Last Chef Standing showdown. And the chef that was eliminated was Edward. I was so pissed, especially as I felt that Last Chef second chance deal was bogus.Bev was eliminated, she should have stayed that way. But Karma came back last week and bit her in the ass, eliminating her for a second time.  Lindsay won the quick fire challenge and was passed into the last show. Then Paul secured a spot, and it came down to Bev and Sarah. Sarah came through, and Bev's gone and she'll stay gone this time. That leaves the final three - Paul, Lindsay, Sarah. I like all three chefs, so I won't be disappointed, no matter who wins, but I think I'm leaning toward Paul as the winner. In the meantime, I'm mourning Edward's loss. He should have been there too.

A brief Vampire Diaries note - the show is off again until March. I don't really care. I'm sick to death of Klaus and his family, and if it weren't for Damon, I wouldn't care if I never saw the show again. Tired of martyr Stefan - yeah, we all knew that he's being a hardass for Elena. Not that I wanted her with Damon, 'cause I don't. But I want to see him happy. Paradox.

Poor Hank! He keeps getting blamed for stuff he didn't even do! Trying to protect Karen's new hubby by claiming the stripper Richard banged as his own girlfriend just didn't work out so well. Now Karen and Becca are mad at him without reason, and he was forced to agree to read the first ten pages of Becca's handsome but no-good boyfriend's screenplay. One good thing - at least Mia isn't in the picture any more. *quickly throws salt over my shoulder*  I'm really loving the fifth season, things are always happening, and you gotta love Hank Moody, right?

In other news, the Sandwich King is back! The second season of Jeff Mauro's show premiered Sunday, and this season is already off to a good start. In the first episode, Jeff visited a deli there in Chicago, and showed us how to make grilled cheese two ways - one for children, one for adults, along with a hearty tomato soup, and then he made a meat loaf sandwich. Everything looked delicious! All the recipes can be found at the Food Network site, and I for one intend to grab them. I'm glad Jeff's back. I think he's more self-assured in front of the camera, and I really enjoy this show.



**SPOILERS AHEAD**

Things are heating up in The Walking Dead, which came back after a brief hiatus. There is growing dissension, and hard decisions are being made. When Herschel disappears, they find they need him for a girl who's gone into shock, so Rick and Glenn track him to the bar in town, where he's tying on one. While there, two men show up, one of whom is Raymond Michael James, late of Terriers and True Blood. The two draw first, and Rick has to shoot them. Unfortunately, they weren't alone, and they end up taking a wounded young man back to the farm. Now they fear to release him because he might give away their location. Shane is more and more unhappy with the way things are going, and Lori suspects he had something to do with Otis' death. Which he did. She tells Rick that Shane is obsessed with her, and is convinced the baby is his, but that she says it's Rick's regardless. That tells me it might be Shane's and she's just not going to deal with the possibility. Their son Carl is growing up far too fast, seen things he should never have seen. When Shane blurts out about the baby in front of him, he asks that if it's a girl, she be named Sophia, after his late friend.

Out of everyone, the character that is developing the most is Glenn. He's come a long way from the innocent young nerd he was at the beginning of the series, and I think there is a definite chance for him and Maggie to forge a lasting a alliance. I really do not like Lori, and the best thing would be if she and Shane ran off, but I don't see that happening, as she's starting to see him as a psycho. It's a really rough world, and I'm not sure things will ever get better, at least not in the foreseeable future.

Alcatraz keeps on delivering, this week's episode involving Johnny McKee, a guy who specialized in poison. In order to learn something about him, Rebecca wants to talk to the prisoner who occupied the cell next to his - Jack Sylvane. When she wants to go to the prison where he's being held, Hauser stalls, and says he'll bring him to her, which he does. There's a lot that she and Diego don't know about what's going on, but I predict someday it'll come out. It's coming closer all the time. For one thing, the fact that Lucy comes from the same time as the prisoners. They know Hauser worked at The Rock then, but not about her, not to mention she looks the same as she did then. Hauser has moved her from the hospital where she was at to the facility where the prisoners are housed. Rebecca is trying to get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding her grandfather, but Hauser seems determined to keep her from up. Keep up the good work.

All for now, gotta get back to editing and writing. I have an idea for an open call at DSP, but I don't want to jinx it by talking about it!

Until next time, take care!

♥ Julie

Warning Labels for Books?

Well, I think I've seen it all now. It's a bit of a quandary, actually. I thought we'd come away from labeling people, quit using hateful names and tags, identifying them by their color, their religion, their sex or sexual preference. Now it's no longer pc. More importantly, it's not humane, and that's cool.

But when did we start labeling our books for content? I can see a label for sexual content. Not everyone wishes to read sexually explicit material. But now we have to come out and reveal other aspects of the plot because perhaps someone might be offended in the reading of it? Isn't that like exposing your plot before the reader even gets a chance to discover it?  Seriously?

I don't get it. Isn't the purpose of a book to explore different kinds of people, different kinds of themes, plots, etc, and to do it safely, from the confines of wherever we choose to read? Why are we attempting to sanitize this experience before it's even begun? Why are people so presumptuous as to know what everyone feels and thinks? And to feel obligated to warn them in advance?

Have you never read a book that upset you? I have. More than one. There are books and authors that make you feel. You invest yourself in their characters and maybe things happen to those characters and you hurt for them, and maybe the plot doesn't go the way you hoped, and you feel pain for them. Does that make the book wrong? No. And it never occurred to me that maybe I should have been warned about it beforehand, given the choice to avoid it. Movies are the same way. Some are very upsetting. There are some films that are so depressing, I'll never watch them again.  Terms of Endearment springs to mind. Sophie's Choice. Or maybe I will, after a long period of time elapses. Do I think the film needs to come with a warning?  No, I don't.

Adult books have adult themes. If you can't handle that, stick with mindless pap and erotica. There's lots of that out there. If that's what you want, that's fine. But don't force us to put labels on our writing just so you don't squirm, or just because you think or assume someone else will.

Did anyone try to label Shakespeare with content warning?  Titus Andronicus - warning, rape, cannibalism, and death. Romeo and Juliet - warning, violence, teenaged suicide. Hamlet - warning, incest, ghosts, violence. Midsummer's Night Dream - warning, possible bestiality.  Of course not, we'd never think of it. So what has happened to readers that they feel the need to be warned now?  Damned if I know.

Maybe this is the warning we should attach to our books:  Warning, contents just might make you think or feel.

It's life, folks. It doesn't come with warnings or roadmaps or infallible rules. It's meant to be lived. Books are meant to be read. Since when have we become allergic to ideas?  It's a scary thought, and makes me wonder about the future of literature. Are we dumbing down books the way we've dumbed down our television viewing? And where do we draw the line?

By the way, another name for this is censorship.

I'd love to know what you all think!  Please comment, or drop me a line at shelley_runyon@yahoo.com.