Jump to content

Censorship: What is it, and who's got it?


Sci-2

Recommended Posts

Back at Worldcon 05 in Glasgow (or possibly the following Eastercon in April 06 in the same city), I was on a panel about dystopian fiction, and had a very interesting run in with a woman who'd grown up in East Germany before the Wall came down. Her argument was that as SF authors we had a duty not to imagine grim, depressing futures, because if we did, where would people draw hope from? As she saw it, we had a social duty to write positive, uplifting fiction which would encourage people to look forward to the dawning of a new and better age.

I don't need to tell you how art and literature were treated in East Germany during the Communist era.

This sensibility is perfectly reflected in the Satanic Verses debacle - there, as in East Germany, an assumption was being made about what an artist is - to wit, that artists have a given job and specific duties relating to that job, and that those duties included not upsetting people (or at least not people whose opinions "matter")

When I referenced The Satanic Verses fatwa a couple of threads ago and so triggered this massive inquiry into censorship, censorship was not in fact my primary focus. Instead, what I saw reflected in (some of) the hate for Abercrombie's work was that same sensibility, that same assumption that if a writer upsets me, something should be done about it. In short, that I have the right not to be offended by the art I consume.

Censorship itself is a fact of civilised life. Absolutists who call for "no censorship" have no understanding of how a civilised society works. Certain art is deemed not suitable for children of certain ages, and that's a good thing. Telling outright lies about real people is not considered acceptable, and that's a good thing. Certain incitements to violent or criminal activity are deemed sufficient reason to truncate freedom of speech in that instance, and that's a good thing too. All this involves the placing of markers and where exactly those markers are placed is a complex social and legal issue.

Censorship itself is not the problem. The problem is this - that the I-have-a-right-not-to-be-offended sensibility likes to hi-jack the necessary machinery of censorship because it is also absolutist and has no understanding of how art works.

Susan Sontag once said that great art has the ability to make us uncomfortable. Appreciating art requires you to embrace that discomfort.

Beyond that point, I believe Datepalm has already had the (very eloquent) last word:

I suppose its becuase I think its none of my business as a reader, in a way, to contribute to the process of writing a book. I feel free to criticize/boycott/love/hate/whatever the finished product, but I guess I feel like authors should go out on the limb of the writing themselves. I'd rather believe writers are writing what they write from some passion or idea. Again, maybe i'm being overly romantic here and a committee really can write a great novel. Any one aware of examples?

Also, on the practical front, I don't want me or my ideologies to be pandered to or accommodated out of kindness or PCness or the kind of self censorship of the movie studios - we simply musn't show that sort of thing. People won't like it. - I think that just breeds resentment, ultimately. I mean, to use Abercrombie as an example again, since he's laid out his own personal process here, he's probably not going to write a character like Terez again. Not becuase he'll go back and fix her because someone pointed her out to him and he doesn't want to offend people/be thought of as sexist/get into long arguments on the internet, but because he wouldn't write her in the first place because his actual sense of good, and non-sexist, writing has changed.

...and one more point, as a question of intellectual/ideological/emotional/whatever challenge and robustness of the debate...Maybe I don't know what I want. I don't know what will blow or change my mind. If books come pre-tailored to my specifications, whatever they are here, (lots of spaceships, say.) but 'nothing that I will think is sexist' is a specification. Why not stretch it to 'nothing that will make me feel uncomfortable'? I'm as confident of my ideals as anybody, but not thatconfident. I don't want an echo chamber.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship itself is not the problem. The problem is this - that the I-have-a-right-not-to-be-offended sensibility likes to hi-jack the necessary machinery of censorship because it is also absolutist and has no understanding of how art works.

Can you elaborate on the machinery of censorship? As you've said censorship is beyond legal, I am unclear on how one hi-jacks the machinery beyond campaigning for a law.

There is a difference between a general statement that the world must conform to my tastes and a statement that an artistic work will be criticized for its poor portrayal of an RL occurrence or its perpetuation of harmful social narrative.

If any artist doesn't trust the public with criticism of their works, then they shouldn't trust the public with their art. No one sane is out to attack drawings stuck onto private fridges after all.

Susan Sontag once said that great art has the ability to make us uncomfortable. Appreciating art requires you to embrace that discomfort.

And being an artist requires you to accept responsibility for your works as well as being able to embrace criticism to some extent. But the Joe has already said as much in a much more eloquent manner than I could.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this call to embrace discomfort suggests one must simply accept something like Birth of a Nation as art. I suspect if a movie like that came out today, those who had a hand in its production would be boycotted and rightly so.

I also think the "embrace discomfort" call, while charming and all as a slogan, threatens the genuinely artistic. I think it is a disservice to conflate thoughtful depictions of sex and violence, for example, with creators dipping into the well of torture porn and claiming their works are a public service.

(Note, in case this is read as a sly dig, The Steel Remains - the only book I've read of yours Richard - is something I'd rate as decent to good.)

Bluest Eye made me uncomfortable. However, it did so because it forced me to confront a lot of complexities involving sexual assault and internalized racism.

Some works are disturbing thanks to the author's ability to describe, others are disturbing because of the compassionate sensibilities of the reader rather than the talent of the creator.

I'm as confident of my ideals as anybody, but not that confident. I don't want an echo chamber.

This is a brilliant conclusion to Datepalm's post. As Verboten stated elsewhere, even a moral call of should is not a call for banning but rather an alert on taking responsibility for one's works. One can, as she stated, spin shit into gold.

Sometimes, however, shit will stay shit and that is what criticism is for whether it is moral outrage or artistic opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Susan Sontag once said that great art has the ability to make us uncomfortable. Appreciating art requires you to embrace that discomfort.

We're not exactly talking about Lolita or 100 Days of Sodom here. Those are supremely uncomfortable works but they are written so well (and in the case of the latter, with such disturbingly beautiful prose) that it overcomes and in some cases actually enhances the issues within the text.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's some rare company. I don't know about Sodom but Lolita was one of the most brilliantly written and beautiful books I have ever hated reading. Richard is probably not in Nabokov's league but neither is anyone else really.

Interesting too, the child rape in Lolita was never in the POV of the victim, Delores. Delores was, at least bi-curious according to some intimations in the first part of the book, and she existed more or less, to give Humbert someone to lust after and rape. Clearly Delores was a much better fleshed out character, but did you have the same issues with the rape scenes in Lolita as with the scene in Abercrombie's book. And yes I understand this is an apples to oranges comparison, Abercrombie is no Nabokov (sorry Joe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a lot of time to post, but as important as it is for artists to be able to make people uncomfortable with their art it is even more important for people to be able to talk about it in whatever way they choose without being concerned about offending the artist or other people. That is the biggest value that challenging art can have - the ability to get people actually talking about a subject. If that means that the artist causes people to react by wanting that work banned, so be it. If anything, that may be even better a sign that it's doing a good job.

The most important thing other than that is to make sure that that power of banning is not easily or readily used in any institutionalized way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censorship is deciding to stop a work before publication. It's that simple. Post-publication sanctions against authors simply doesen't fall under censorship. (see Aftonbladet for why this distinction is material)

If we confine the description of censorship to this, then we need to create another word to describe allt he other ways of suppressing things so we can stop having people repeat this inane point.

EDIT: Not to mention that the logical conclusion of "people can't tell others not to read the book" i that everyone would be legally forced to read Goodkind.

And using that kind of reasoning, the logical conclusion of "people can tell others not to read the book" is that the fatwa against The Satanic Verses was perfectly ok.

I think, perhaps, we can agree to find somewhere in the middle. As Richard points out above, "censorship" (whatever word you wanna use to combine all those ideas of suppressing something into one) is not always bad.

Or "this author should really stick to sci-fi novels". It's all censorship or it's not censorship, but the notion that banning books is equivalent to stating your opinion or even trying to convince others that your opinion is right by using facts and references is akin to saying that any form of penetration is rape. It's a dilution of the word that makes it meaningless and absurd. Right now, I'm apparently censoring you because I'm trying to convince you to not post other arguments. Is that true? In the most lenient form of the word. But the connotation for 'censorship' has basically nothing at all to do with what arguing on the internet; if anything, it's more accurate to say that anyone attempting to argue against people's ability to argue is far more censorial than the arguments themselves, as at least that comes from a place of similar power (two users on the internet) vs. a user on the internet and a mass-publication book author.

Another thing is simply that 'should' is the correct grammatical wording for what the intent is. Sciborg pointed out examples we use it with - it is used as condemnation of something, but it conveys very little authority. At best, it's a severe shunning. Shun shun shun.

Yes, cause shunning has never led anywhere bad.

But really, let's get right to the heart of this. If the expression of opinion is meant to create a change in the society/industry/whatever being talked out (which some have flat out said it is), then at what point does that move from ok to problematic?

I think Richard gives a good thrust at that with what is, essentially, an argument for the reason behind that attempt at change being the key. Though this itself brings in ideas of societal correctness.

Basically, I think most people would say calling for the boycott of a film because it portrays all black people as mongrel idiots would be a good thing. And the same most people would say calling for the boycott of a film because it portrays an interracial couple kissing is not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you elaborate on the machinery of censorship? As you've said censorship is beyond legal, I am unclear on how one hi-jacks the machinery beyond campaigning for a law.

There is a difference between a general statement that the world must conform to my tastes and a statement that an artistic work will be criticized for its poor portrayal of an RL occurrence or its perpetuation of harmful social narrative.

If any artist doesn't trust the public with criticism of their works, then they shouldn't trust the public with their art. No one sane is out to attack drawings stuck onto private fridges after all.

And being an artist requires you to accept responsibility for your works as well as being able to embrace criticism to some extent. But the Joe has already said as much in a much more eloquent manner than I could.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but this call to embrace discomfort suggests one must simply accept something like Birth of a Nation as art. I suspect if a movie like that came out today, those who had a hand in its production would be boycotted and rightly so.

I also think the "embrace discomfort" call, while charming and all as a slogan, threatens the genuinely artistic. I think it is a disservice to conflate thoughtful depictions of sex and violence, for example, with creators dipping into the well of torture porn and claiming their works are a public service.

(Note, in case this is read as a sly dig, The Steel Remains - the only book I've read of yours Richard - is something I'd rate as decent to good.)

Bluest Eye made me uncomfortable. However, it did so because it forced me to confront a lot of complexities involving sexual assault and internalized racism.

Some works are disturbing thanks to the author's ability to describe, others are disturbing because of the compassionate sensibilities of the reader rather than the talent of the creator.

This is a brilliant conclusion to Datepalm's post. As Verboten stated elsewhere, even a moral call of should is not a call for banning but rather an alert on taking responsibility for one's works. One can, as she stated, spin shit into gold.

Sometimes, however, shit will stay shit and that is what criticism is for whether it is moral outrage or artistic opinion.

Yea, but you keep looking for artists to accept responsibility for their work. Why? Part of your continued response for pages of the last thread included the idea that sick people will read and take something away from the work. As if, somehow, by denying them a venue for their sickness entirely they will get over it. As i mentioned before, there is a considerable difference between the author condoning something vile, and the author putting forth an idea that he/she does not support, but which is held to be important to the story.

Part of me equates this with the notion of bars being held responsible for the people they serve. Fuck that. You go to the bar to drink, you take responsibility for yourself. You are an alcoholic? Can't control yourself in social situations? No reason the bar should be held responsible.

People need to take responsibilty for themselves. It is not up to authors to take it for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Sciborg2

Can you elaborate on the machinery of censorship? As you've said censorship is beyond legal, I am unclear on how one hi-jacks the machinery beyond campaigning for a law.

Censorship spreads beyond issues of legal sanction, certainly. But obviously there still exists legal enforcement machinery for this purpose.

The hi-jack I am describing occurs when people fail to grasp the difference between a valid use of restraint (eg: protection of minors from unsuitable content; prevention of incitement to acts of violence) and the simple desire to stop anyone saying anything they don't like (eg: trying to have Darwinian evolution expunged from school curricula; Dworkin and MacKinnon's attempt to ban "pornography"; the shutdown of the play "Behzti" in Birmingham).

As to "Birth of a Nation", I think that's something of a red herring - times change, and what is considered acceptable changed with them. But if you want a parallel example, Robert E Howard's rather obnoxiously racist short stories detailing Conan's run-ins with evil "blacks" are still in print along with the rest of his ouevre. And actually I think that's rather a good thing - it provides valuable lessons, and generates its own quotient of "discomfort" (though I would hardly claim Howard as great art, of course) Banning or boycotting those stories would, I think, be counterproductive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Verboten

We're not exactly talking about Lolita or 100 Days of Sodom here. Those are supremely uncomfortable works but they are written so well (and in the case of the latter, with such disturbingly beautiful prose) that it overcomes and in some cases actually enhances the issues within the text.

Ehm........ So you're suggesting that if only something us sufficiently beautifully written (or otherwise brought into being), then content is forgivable? Pardon me, but - eek!!

(That would certainly let "Birth of a Nation" off the hook!! By all accounts, Griffith was an astonishingly accomplished and innovative cinematographer)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shryke,

Basically, I think most people would say calling for the boycott of a film because it portrays all black people as mongrel idiots would be a good thing. And the same most people would say calling for the boycott of a film because it portrays an interracial couple kissing is not.

I would say that any boycott (which is not support or encouraged by coersion) is okay. A boycott is normally people choosin not to partake of something. If widely supported it is the most effective way to influence the actions of a private individual or group. When used with the coersive power of the State it is something that is easily abuse. Hence, my differentation between boycott (no coersion) and censorship (with coersion). They simply are not the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be quite fair, "Birth of a Nation" is just as readily available right now as the Conan stories are: Amazon.com, less than $15.

ETA: I should specify, in the U.S. and/or to those with Internet access adequate to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to "Birth of a Nation", I think that's something of a red herring - times change, and what is considered acceptable changed with them...Banning or boycotting those stories would, I think, be counterproductive.

I do agree banning a work is counterproductive. But seeing the incredible damage done by Birth of a Nation (unless my history-fu is way off) I think it is definitely something I would boycott - at least I would ensure the creator saw no profits from my wallet.

ETA: Hmmm, Birth of a Nation may not be the best example, just the first that came to mind.

There is only so much money to spend on anything.

I think the big thing to take from Verboten's post is - Hey, grimdark, it was done way better a long time ago. People churning out the same old with lower quality writing isn't adding to the art world, if anything grimdark is holding the genre itself down as a joke.

People need to take responsibilty for themselves. It is not up to authors to take it for them.

I'd look at all the propaganda that has spurred violent action against various groups in history before making that argument. The implication you are making - as I see it - is that fiction doesn't shape culture. That it has no power.

The quote in Galleymac's signature states my feelings on this:

“...[T]he great justification for the act of reading and writing fiction is that through it we can be disciplined and seduced into imagining other people’s lives with understanding and compassion, even if we do not ‘identify’ with them.”

—Arturo Islas, (“On the Bridge at the Border,” lecture, Stanford University, 1990)

There was a case-study about a group, I can't remember where, that saw no real occurrence of eating disorders among women until the introduction of American television. The cultural expectations on body weight between African American girls and white girls has been studied, with greater body image issues occurring in the latter last I checked.

I've met people from other countries who've never met a black person who think they are criminals and lazy.

Now, if we want to argue that rape culture isn't real, we can. Because I think this underlying belief that it doesn't exist is what is framing this debate. But way earlier in the depiction of women thread Nukavalee linked to an article that negates that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because one should always accept responsibility for ones' actions?

Yes, but you can't always be responsible for other peoples actions. That is the point of my post, and to be honest, what i tried to emphasize in the rape thread. An author cannot account for every nutjob and looney when he writes a story. They cannot, nor should they have to. Doing so, in my mind, leads to a form of censorship, which is part of what the back and forth in the last thread was all about.

I'd look at all the propaganda that has spurred violent action against various groups in history before making that argument. The implication you are making - as I see it - is that fiction doesn't shape culture. That it has no power.

Come on, this is a false equivalency. Sciborg, go back and read my posts man, and i mean read them. Notice when i mention in the last one, as i mentioned in the previous threads, that there is a fundamental difference between writing hate and having a story with hate in it? You see an implication because you want to see it, you have for how many pages of several threads now. I at no point make mention that fiction does not shape culture. Frick, i have a degree in political science, i know full well its power. I admire Vaclav Havel and dislike most of the hate that comes out of the Republican party and Fox News.

But there is a considerable distance between writing something that explores an idea because it is part of the story, and a piece of hate filled screed. Authors should feel free to be able to write as they will, exploring themes and ideas as they want, without needing to justify themselves to anyone. It is not for the reader to interfere in the writing process, only to judge its ultimate value when it is done.

Now, if we want to argue that rape culture isn't real, we can. Because I think this underlying belief that it doesn't exist is what is framing this debate.

No its not, at all, and never has been the thrust of the debate. The debate started because Larry linked to a shit blog that espoused hate because it felt that Abercrombies books were bad, though it was put in more strident terms. It moved into a problem of being lesbian rape for some, while those that saw nothing wrong with that section of the book for what it did to the overall narrative, questioned why it mattered that it was lesbian rape as opposed to rape. In fact, alternative people to the lesbian were listed as possible candidates for rape, as if raping the princesses cousin or brother or what have you would make it better. Rape is equally horrible, regardless of sexual preference. Then the censorship debate eventually came up, because there were those that felt that this need for authors to self-censor because there might be crazies out there is wrong headed.

I listed, as an argument against lesbian rape, that on average regular rape is horrendously high. Others talked with lesbians and those people made mention of the inherinet problem with many of the arguments that it should not matter that the character is a lesbian, only that they are raped. No on denied that a rape culture exists, at any point. Only that authors need to be accountable for every misinterpreted word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, this is a false equivalency. Sciborg, go back and read my posts man, and i mean read them. Notice when i mention in the last one, as i mentioned in the previous threads, that there is a fundamental difference between writing hate and having a story with hate in it?

Apologies - this is why I qualified my words with "as I see it". I agree, depiction is not (edit: always explicit) endorsement. Where it seems we disagree is where fiction, no matter its good intentions, can unintentionally enforce RL narratives. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I do think Eco's latest novel, and the charges against it, show the danger of overly enthusiastic attempts to attack bigotry. It is important to see how sympathetic characters can be racist, and how racist/sexist/homophobic people think.

Again, it seems to be that the question is of nuance. By taking a principled stand against a claim of "should" I think we remove the teeth from criticism and its purpose. Babies and bathwater and all that.

We'll also have to agree to disagree on the quality of Moon's blog - since the mods have stated we shouldn't comment on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the big thing to take from Verboten's post is - Hey, grimdark, it was done way better a long time ago. People churning out the same old with lower quality writing isn't adding to the art world, if anything grimdark is holding the genre itself down as a joke.

Ah, but now you just sound like the old folks! "It was better in the old days!" Why the assumption that modern writing must necessarily be of "churned out" lower quality? We're closing on that "there's no decent music these days" vibe here. And at Xmas too!! Shame on you! :)

I haven't read Nabokov, but I've dipped into de Sade in both English and French back when my French was equal to the task - I'd say he writes well enough, but he's not on the other side of some great gulf from writers working today.

It's curious, the amount of hate there is for (the confected straw man of) "grimdark". I can't help feeling that hidden behind it all is a slightly resentful subtext, that somehow this strand of writing is spoiling the fairy fun of a genre where people retreat to avoid the unpleasantries of the real human condition. After all, no-one here is berating all the Tolkien imitators for "churning out" "lower quality" versions of that old standard.......

Just a thought.

And with that - Merry Xmas to one and all, and goodnight. Gotta put some cookies out for Santa and his elves.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's curious, the amount of hate there is for (the confected straw man of) "grimdark". I can't help feeling that hidden behind it all is a slightly resentful subtext, that somehow this strand of writing is spoiling the fairy fun of a genre where people retreat to avoid the unpleasantries of the real human condition. After all, no-one here is berating all the Tolkien imitators for "churning out" "lower quality" versions of that old standard.......

Well, the question of censorship deals with speech that is considered offensive, so Tolkien imitators are less likely to come up.

There is still ground to break or even retread on grimdark topics. Bakker deals with addiction, violence, spirituality - not always well IMHO, but well enough to be complimented for what he's doing.

Mieville has lots of violence and even rape, but it feels like there is more of a message than Hostel type entertainment.

Blood Meridian could be grimdark or horror, but there is something deeper being said about violence.

Over all grimdark, to me, feels like shock to be shocking.

What is the artistic merit, or for that matter originality, for authors to present an incredibly narrow window when depicting sexual assault, often ignoring or short changing both the cultural factors that led to the rape and the recovery process that follows it?

ETA: Just to be clear not trying to impose a legal standard here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...