Self-Publishing Censorship?

[TimRees]

As self-published authors, we censor our own material... Or do we? I allow my characters free-rein. I am an advocate for free-speech. In my opinion, free-speech is the very spine of a free world. Yet our morals will vary greatly and, in my experience anyway, characters express themselves and I find myself asking the question: is that helpful to the story? If I allow the character to say that, it's going to take us down a road where maybe I'm going to step over the line... But where is the line? Especially for an author who is self-censoring where that line is...

In every novel I have found myself challenging my characters about where the line is drawn. In Raw Nerve, a novel with the focus on racism where my protagonist goes undercover to smash the Ku Klux Klan, I created the antagonists to be as racist as I dare go, because I wanted the reader to detest them. But how far is too far...? A few have written to me to state strongly how deeply offensive they find the novel - though none of the complainers are of African ethnicity. In fact, the first agent for that novel was African-American and she proclaimed it the next big black novel and, actually, I take great pride in the fact I upset a few white men and woman.

And in The Drama Merchant there is a atheist who rips into christianity and I know he'd going to upset people, but he only says the truth, and, in my opinion, it is necessary the truth is vocalised... but who am I to judge how deeply I hurt or offend people? My agent (not the same agent as Raw Nerve) at the time was very offended by the character Steve - possibly why he is no longer my agent. It was obvious, either I take the words out of Steve's mouth or he couldn't represent the novel. I self-published the novel in the end and I'm still questioning the wisdom of my decision. Obviously I would have sold a load more books had I re-written Steve's dialogue.

In A Seed Once Sown there were other moral dilemmas where characters did things that are morally questionable, but were relevant to the story...

I just think this is is a good discussion point for authors, because we all create characters who may offend...?

 

[Claire G]

Characters need to represent the diversity of people in the real world. Some of those people are offensive to many. Readers need to understand that it's the character speaking and acting, not the author's viewpoint, and I think sometimes people blur the lines between the two. A well-written 'baddie' is often the most interesting character in a story, and the story is richer and more relevant as a result.

 

[TimRees]

Characters need to represent the diversity of people in the real world. Some of those people are offensive to many. Readers need to understand that it's the character speaking and acting, not the author's viewpoint, and I think sometimes people blur the lines between the two. A well-written 'baddie' is often the most interesting character in a story, and the story is richer and more relevant as a result.

Hi Claire,

Interesting you call them baddies. When I was a boy I would watch western films and the good guy always wore a white hat and the bad guy wore a black hat... I think fiction has moved on.

Today it is more a question of who are the good guys and bad guys and how do we tell them apart?

For instance, if I were to were to write a character similar to Donald Trump, in my head he would personify evil, yet to millions he is the good guy and possibly could get re-elected by the American people. I find that bizarre, but that is the truth we live with today.

In a thriller novel I finished earlier this year, I created a character called Simon Merriman, a really odd, weird person who enjoys inflicting pain and suffering, however, he is (in the novel) employed by the British government and is only obeying orders carrying out a task where many important people are counting on him achieving the goal (including the King).

In my opinion, that is closer to real life than we dare believe...

I find this to be a common occurrence in my stories, i.e, there is no 'baddies' or goodies, there is just people. Vincent states in Delphian, "There is no is no evil in this world, there is just people."

I'm developing a storyline at the moment that involves a Tory MP into some really nasty behaviour. The problem is, of course, it will be totally believable today, whilst forty years ago I would have been laughed at for even thinking 'people' would behave in this way....

The statement: truth is stranger than fiction, is truer today than ever...

But back to the question: as authors, where do we draw the line? And is there a line?

 

[TimRees]

And maybe I need to clarify why, in my opinion and experience, this subject is important to authors.

I'll return to Raw Nerve as the prime example:

I sent the manuscript to (in those days I posted via snail mail a whole ream of paper (the MS) to an agent in New York who signed me upon receipt. The next few weeks were crazy. Everyone wanted it and I flew out to New York to meet with publishers. Then, suddenly, doors closed.

The senior management brakes were applied when they read about the genocide the Ku Klux Klan had planned. In the novel it is explained by a (white) South African geneticist. The problem was it was too plausible, too possible...

Whilst in New York, I was having drinks with an actor friend who said, "My worry is, Tim, you're putting ideas into people heads.... The wrong people..."

I think therein lies the truth. As an author I had overstepped the line. I had conceived of something so awful, yet possible... Should I have made the idea about the planned genocide an impossibility?

I don't know. To me, the fact it is possible should be viewed as a stark warning and not pushed aside in the hope nobody else thinks of it....

So, would I censor that material if given another chance?

My answer to that is no. I would actually shout louder...

 

[Claire G]

Hi Claire,

Interesting you call them baddies. When I was a boy I would watch western films and the good guy always wore a white hat and the bad guy wore a black hat... I think fiction has moved on.

Today it is more a question of who are the good guys and bad guys and how do we tell them apart?

For instance, if I were to were to write a character similar to Donald Trump, in my head he would personify evil, yet to millions he is the good guy and possibly could get re-elected by the American people. I find that bizarre, but that is the truth we live with today.

In a thriller novel I finished earlier this year, I created a character called Simon Merriman, a really odd, weird person who enjoys inflicting pain and suffering, however, he is (in the novel) employed by the British government and is only obeying orders carrying out a task where many important people are counting on him achieving the goal (including the King).

In my opinion, that is closer to real life than we dare believe...

I find this to be a common occurrence in my stories, i.e, there is no 'baddies' or goodies, there is just people. Vincent states in Delphian, "There is no is no evil in this world, there is just people."

I'm developing a storyline at the moment that involves a Tory MP into some really nasty behaviour. The problem is, of course, it will be totally believable today, whilst forty years ago I would have been laughed at for even thinking 'people' would behave in this way....

The statement: truth is stranger than fiction, is truer today than ever...

But back to the question: as authors, where do we draw the line? And is there a line?

You're right, even the worst of people have redeeming qualities. Characters with shades of good and bad are more three-dimensional and more reflective of reality. Since you ask, in my opinion, there is a line in fiction - but it's not the novel you wrote regarding the KKK/genocide. It would be the glorification of sexual abuse of children, which hopefully would never be written (though, Lolita? Haven't read it for years and can't really remember it).

As you say, truth can be stranger than fiction. A few years ago I remember laughing at the idea that Donald and Boris could become leaders of their nations, then, lo and behold, the ludicrous situation actually occurred. But, we're getting into politics, so I'll stop there!

 

[TimRees]

You're right, even the worst of people have redeeming qualities. Characters with shades of good and bad are more three-dimensional and more reflective of reality. Since you ask, in my opinion, there is a line in fiction - but it's not the novel you wrote regarding the KKK/genocide. It would be the glorification of sexual abuse of children, which hopefully would never be written (though, Lolita? Haven't read it for years and can't really remember it).

As you say, truth can be stranger than fiction. A few years ago I remember laughing at the idea that Donald and Boris could become leaders of their nations, then, lo and behold, the ludicrous situation actually occurred. But, we're getting into politics, so I'll stop there!

Lolita is, arguably, the only book I would personally censor. I've never read it, but, funnily enough, a friend I met with only two weeks ago was currently reading it and told me it made him feel very uncomfortable and it was a hard read.

It might be a good idea to put to a vote who would censor/ban Lolita? As authors we are probably all against censorship, but surely that book is the exception to the rule?

In the late nineties I was a member of a writers forum called Author! Author! It was very much like Litopia where writers critiqued each others WIP's. My first novel was finished, so I didn't take part in that much. But I did read the chapter of one story which had caused a flame thread (as we called a huge argument in those days). A young guy had posted a chapter which graphically depicted a young girl (8 years-old I think) being sexually assaulted by a middle-aged man. Everyone was screaming at this author that the material was only going to titillate a paedophile. He was shouting back that as an author he needed to explore some dark areas in order to understand the character. All of us tried to explain to him that he had to find another way and that writing kiddy porn is 100% not acceptable.

In one of my novels, A Seed Once Sown, I did use the young girl and middle-aged man to enhance the moral fibre of the protagonist. Quick summary: William, is a cold-blooded murderer. If a trophy hunter posts a picture of themselves on Facebook standing on an elephant or lion they've just shot for fun, William will find that individual and he will kill them. William also has a girlfriend who has a fifteen-year-old daughter. The girlfriend dies suddenly of cancer and William is left with a fifteen-year-old girl to whom he has no legal obligation. After the death of her mother, the now insecure girl does try to be overly affectionate with William and he draws the line, whilst assuring her she is loved and that nothing will change in her world. She still has a parent, food on the table and clothes on her back. He ends up adopting her with her calling him Dad. I found that storyline beautifully counter-balanced the fact he is a murderer.

My point is, we mustn't be afraid of brushing that line if it adds to the story in a positive way.

 

[Claire G]

It's difficult, because authors should be able to reflect all aspects of life, the good and the bad. The idea of censorship makes me very uncomfortable and I hate saying I'd draw the line at anything. Perhaps it depends on how it's done, but even then, I can't see that such a subject could be written about in a way that would persuade me to read it and I would hate to know that it's out there in the world..

 

[TimRees]

It's difficult, because authors should be able to reflect all aspects of life, the good and the bad. The idea of censorship makes me very uncomfortable and I hate saying I'd draw the line at anything. Perhaps it depends on how it's done, but even then, I can't see that such a subject could be written about in a way that would persuade me to read it and I would hate to know that it's out there in the world..

I think that is the line for me. The ability to look myself in the mirror... and wink....

 

[Pamela Jo]

Lolita is, arguably, the only book I would personally censor. I've never read it, but, funnily enough, a friend I met with only two weeks ago was currently reading it and told me it made him feel very uncomfortable and it was a hard read.

It might be a good idea to put to a vote who would censor/ban Lolita? As authors we are probably all against censorship, but surely that book is the exception to the rule?

In the late nineties I was a member of a writers forum called Author! Author! It was very much like Litopia where writers critiqued each others WIP's. My first novel was finished, so I didn't take part in that much. But I did read the chapter of one story which had caused a flame thread (as we called a huge argument in those days). A young guy had posted a chapter which graphically depicted a young girl (8 years-old I think) being sexually assaulted by a middle-aged man. Everyone was screaming at this author that the material was only going to titillate a paedophile. He was shouting back that as an author he needed to explore some dark areas in order to understand the character. All of us tried to explain to him that he had to find another way and that writing kiddy porn is 100% not acceptable.

In one of my novels, A Seed Once Sown, I did use the young girl and middle-aged man to enhance the moral fibre of the protagonist. Quick summary: William, is a cold-blooded murderer. If a trophy hunter posts a picture of themselves on Facebook standing on an elephant or lion they've just shot for fun, William will find that individual and he will kill them. William also has a girlfriend who has a fifteen-year-old daughter. The girlfriend dies suddenly of cancer and William is left with a fifteen-year-old girl to whom he has no legal obligation. After the death of her mother, the now insecure girl does try to be overly affectionate with William and he draws the line, whilst assuring her she is loved and that nothing will change in her world. She still has a parent, food on the table and clothes on her back. He ends up adopting her with her calling him Dad. I found that storyline beautifully counter-balanced the fact he is a murderer.

My point is, we mustn't be afraid of brushing that line if it adds to the story in a positive way.

I wouldn't ban Lolita but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. That's where the real perversity lies. I think it reveals just how many pedophiles and predators lurk in universities. Salinger being the first one that comes to mind. He destroyed a talented young teenagers career then threw her away because her body clamped so tight he couldn't have actual sex with her.
Nabokov writes prettily. Among writers in his native language he is known as a "bubble" writer. All iridescent and lovely, but no substance. So why then in English is he considered a genius?

 

[Rich.]

This is a really interesting thread, and probably an open-ended discussion. Self censorship, in part at least, is a form of social lubricant that helps society to function harmoniously, and most people self censor all the time – "No, really, it's a lovely hat!". We do it to save people's feelings, to avoid arguments we're not prepared to have, and to protect ourselves from attack. But that doesn't mean we can never be transgressive. If we weren't, social norms would be static, which they clearly aren't (albeit some evolve much more slowly than others).

I don't think the situation is any different for writers. We realize (hopefully) when we're writing about a transgressive subject, and so perhaps the best we can do is to ask ourselves why we're writing about it and to what end. If we have self-satisfying answers to those questions, perhaps that's all we need. But perhaps we also want to think about the reaction our words might cause, and the damage that reaction might cause to us.

There is a larger question here related to our currently polarized world and the swiftness of social-media takedowns. In such a febrile environment it wouldn't be surprising to discover that self-censorship is widely practised.

 

[Barbara]

Earlier, I heard a radio presenter say:

'And later in the program, we'll be discussing whether older works should be adapted to suit modern audiences.'

Hmmm. Adapt something old to suit the modern audience ... Isn't that a fluffy version of censorship? Or am I grumpy today?

Hey, here's an idea, let's change all the old classics, take out all the wrinkles that people of today might not like, and call it Botox for books.

Ok, I'm a grumpy guts today.

 

[TimRees]

Earlier, I heard a radio presenter say:

'And later in the program, we'll be discussing whether older works should be adapted to suit modern audiences.'

Hmmm. Adapt something old to suit the modern audience ... Isn't that a fluffy version of censorship? Or am I grumpy today?

Hey, here's an idea, let's change all the old classics, take out all the wrinkles that people of today might not like, and call it Botox for books.

Ok, I'm a grumpy guts today.

Yup! The old classics are being edited to change any language that today is deemed to offend.

I wonder if they'll ever do repeats of Alf Garnet and In Sickness And In Health!!!

And I'm sure Scarecrows found "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz' deeply offensive....

 

[Pamela Jo]

Earlier, I heard a radio presenter say:

'And later in the program, we'll be discussing whether older works should be adapted to suit modern audiences.'

Hmmm. Adapt something old to suit the modern audience ... Isn't that a fluffy version of censorship? Or am I grumpy today?

Hey, here's an idea, let's change all the old classics, take out all the wrinkles that people of today might not like, and call it Botox for books.

Ok, I'm a grumpy guts today.

Next step never mind the wrinkles-just get rid of the old people. There is a series out, rif on a 1970's movie, that everyone past 23 has to bite the dust. I do like the title tho, "Botox for Books" . Isnt it ironic that wrinkles in your brain= good. Face=bad.

 

[Pamela Jo]

As self-published authors, we censor our own material... Or do we? I allow my characters free-rein. I am an advocate for free-speech. In my opinion, free-speech is the very spine of a free world. Yet our morals will vary greatly and, in my experience anyway, characters express themselves and I find myself asking the question: is that helpful to the story? If I allow the character to say that, it's going to take us down a road where maybe I'm going to step over the line... But where is the line? Especially for an author who is self-censoring where that line is...

In every novel I have found myself challenging my characters about where the line is drawn. In Raw Nerve, a novel with the focus on racism where my protagonist goes undercover to smash the Ku Klux Klan, I created the antagonists to be as racist as I dare go, because I wanted the reader to detest them. But how far is too far...? A few have written to me to state strongly how deeply offensive they find the novel - though none of the complainers are of African ethnicity. In fact, the first agent for that novel was African-American and she proclaimed it the next big black novel and, actually, I take great pride in the fact I upset a few white men and woman.

And in The Drama Merchant there is a atheist who rips into christianity and I know he'd going to upset people, but he only says the truth, and, in my opinion, it is necessary the truth is vocalised... but who am I to judge how deeply I hurt or offend people? My agent (not the same agent as Raw Nerve) at the time was very offended by the character Steve - possibly why he is no longer my agent. It was obvious, either I take the words out of Steve's mouth or he couldn't represent the novel. I self-published the novel in the end and I'm still questioning the wisdom of my decision. Obviously I would have sold a load more books had I re-written Steve's dialogue.

In A Seed Once Sown there were other moral dilemmas where characters did things that are morally questionable, but were relevant to the story...

I just think this is is a good discussion point for authors, because we all create characters who may offend...?

Because there is so much censorship on social media (who among us has not been in Facebook jail,) I think it Is even more important to offer uncensored opinions. It might even be why readers gravitate to self publishing in future-who knows. From 2014 un til about 2018 I was an online neonazgul hunter. You will notice that your AC may not let you type that word. Despite the known fact that the recent "riots" in Dublin were planned and executed by those who study Mein Kampf as a textbook and are following strategies that brought down the elected German government in the 1930s you must refer to them as "extreme right demonstrators." The European neonazgul alliance with the KKK in the US was complete by 2014 and played a huge part in getting Trump elected. But very few publications will carry that information.

 

[Robinne Weiss]

An interesting conversation. I was chatting with a used book store owner the other day, who I work with on the Tamariki Book Fest board. He was talking about how one of his missions as a used book dealer is to save old non-fiction books that were written at times when events and people weren't 'spun' in the modern way (e.g.: books that talk about political figures before they became nationally/internationally known ... when they were considered real jerks, but modern textbooks make them out to be spotless heroes).

I think self-censorship is absolutely something we all do. Of course, as someone who primarily writes for ages 8-18, I do a lot of censoring. I do delve into some gritty issues, though--death and grief, assault, transgender issues, racism, sexism, abuse--but I'm careful to keep things that would traumatise kids off-screen. Still I'm happy to say that there are plenty of people who would find my MG and YA books offensive (heaven forbid you have a culture in which children choose their gender at their coming-of-age ceremony!). I write for a particular audience, and that audience does not include people who would be offended by an examination of societal and personal values.

When it comes to stuff like Lolita, which I have read and sometimes wish I hadn't (because you can't un-read something, and I found the book distressing), I'm divided. For the vast majority of readers, I think Lolita is uncomfortable to deeply disturbing, and it's okay to read things that disturb you (no one forced me to read it--I felt I needed to know what horrors the book contained). So I don't think it should be censored because it offends or disturbs people--art does that. Indeed, that is often the whole point of art. Does a book like that make a pedophile more likely to act on their desires? I don't know. If it did, then perhaps I'd agree it should be censored, but let's face it--it's not exactly a how-to manual.

If art didn't offend someone, it would be dull.

 

[TimRees]

An interesting conversation. I was chatting with a used book store owner the other day, who I work with on the Tamariki Book Fest board. He was talking about how one of his missions as a used book dealer is to save old non-fiction books that were written at times when events and people weren't 'spun' in the modern way (e.g.: books that talk about political figures before they became nationally/internationally known ... when they were considered real jerks, but modern textbooks make them out to be spotless heroes).

I think self-censorship is absolutely something we all do. Of course, as someone who primarily writes for ages 8-18, I do a lot of censoring. I do delve into some gritty issues, though--death and grief, assault, transgender issues, racism, sexism, abuse--but I'm careful to keep things that would traumatise kids off-screen. Still I'm happy to say that there are plenty of people who would find my MG and YA books offensive (heaven forbid you have a culture in which children choose their gender at their coming-of-age ceremony!). I write for a particular audience, and that audience does not include people who would be offended by an examination of societal and personal values.

When it comes to stuff like Lolita, which I have read and sometimes wish I hadn't (because you can't un-read something, and I found the book distressing), I'm divided. For the vast majority of readers, I think Lolita is uncomfortable to deeply disturbing, and it's okay to read things that disturb you (no one forced me to read it--I felt I needed to know what horrors the book contained). So I don't think it should be censored because it offends or disturbs people--art does that. Indeed, that is often the whole point of art. Does a book like that make a pedophile more likely to act on their desires? I don't know. If it did, then perhaps I'd agree it should be censored, but let's face it--it's not exactly a how-to manual.

If art didn't offend someone, it would be dull.

An interesting conversation. I was chatting with a used book store owner the other day, who I work with on the Tamariki Book Fest board. He was talking about how one of his missions as a used book dealer is to save old non-fiction books that were written at times when events and people weren't 'spun' in the modern way (e.g.: books that talk about political figures before they became nationally/internationally known ... when they were considered real jerks, but modern textbooks make them out to be spotless heroes).

I think self-censorship is absolutely something we all do. Of course, as someone who primarily writes for ages 8-18, I do a lot of censoring. I do delve into some gritty issues, though--death and grief, assault, transgender issues, racism, sexism, abuse--but I'm careful to keep things that would traumatise kids off-screen. Still I'm happy to say that there are plenty of people who would find my MG and YA books offensive (heaven forbid you have a culture in which children choose their gender at their coming-of-age ceremony!). I write for a particular audience, and that audience does not include people who would be offended by an examination of societal and personal values.

When it comes to stuff like Lolita, which I have read and sometimes wish I hadn't (because you can't un-read something, and I found the book distressing), I'm divided. For the vast majority of readers, I think Lolita is uncomfortable to deeply disturbing, and it's okay to read things that disturb you (no one forced me to read it--I felt I needed to know what horrors the book contained). So I don't think it should be censored because it offends or disturbs people--art does that. Indeed, that is often the whole point of art. Does a book like that make a pedophile more likely to act on their desires? I don't know. If it did, then perhaps I'd agree it should be censored, but let's face it--it's not exactly a how-to manual.

If art didn't offend someone, it would be dull.

Yes, maybe I shouldn't too quick to condemn - that's the main problem with censorship. I should take a page out of my own book and quote a tweet I often made when I was active on Twitter: "Art is perspective. Great art is perspective that pokes you in the eye."

 

[Pamela Jo]

An interesting conversation. I was chatting with a used book store owner the other day, who I work with on the Tamariki Book Fest board. He was talking about how one of his missions as a used book dealer is to save old non-fiction books that were written at times when events and people weren't 'spun' in the modern way (e.g.: books that talk about political figures before they became nationally/internationally known ... when they were considered real jerks, but modern textbooks make them out to be spotless heroes).

I think self-censorship is absolutely something we all do. Of course, as someone who primarily writes for ages 8-18, I do a lot of censoring. I do delve into some gritty issues, though--death and grief, assault, transgender issues, racism, sexism, abuse--but I'm careful to keep things that would traumatise kids off-screen. Still I'm happy to say that there are plenty of people who would find my MG and YA books offensive (heaven forbid you have a culture in which children choose their gender at their coming-of-age ceremony!). I write for a particular audience, and that audience does not include people who would be offended by an examination of societal and personal values.

When it comes to stuff like Lolita, which I have read and sometimes wish I hadn't (because you can't un-read something, and I found the book distressing), I'm divided. For the vast majority of readers, I think Lolita is uncomfortable to deeply disturbing, and it's okay to read things that disturb you (no one forced me to read it--I felt I needed to know what horrors the book contained). So I don't think it should be censored because it offends or disturbs people--art does that. Indeed, that is often the whole point of art. Does a book like that make a pedophile more likely to act on their desires? I don't know. If it did, then perhaps I'd agree it should be censored, but let's face it--it's not exactly a how-to manual.

If art didn't offend someone, it would be dull.

Unfortunately Lolita romanticises murder, rape and abduction. The girl in it tries to escape but can't. Art can make the ugly beautiful. There is a responsibility of the artist to not groom readers to make the unacceptable acceptable. The reality of Lolita is here.

Girl in the Picture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Pamela Jo]

Yes, maybe I shouldn't too quick to condemn - that's the main problem with censorship. I should take a page out of my own book and quote a tweet I often made when I was active on Twitter: "Art is perspective. Great art is perspective that pokes you in the eye."

Poking in the eye is one thing. Shitting in your brain is another.

I admire your choice of characterisation. And I agree it makes the murderer/assassin more intriguing. The idea of sexuality in young girls is worth exploring. Sting did it most famously in "Don't Stand." I however think given the violence towards young girls and their exploitation a male character like yours that draws a boundary is an important counterbalance. Kudos.