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

[Larry.]

A pestilence on him for a mad rogue! 'a pour'd a flagon

of Rhenish on my head once. This same skull, sir, was, sir,

Yorick's skull, the King's jester.

Hamlet:

This? [Takes the skull]

First Clown:

E'en that.

Hamlet:

Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite

jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a

thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!

My gorge rises at it.

A problem that I see with the "gritty"/"grimdark" fantasies is that they, like their treacly counterparts, really do not display anything resembling the full depth and breadth of human life. I quote one of the more famous scenes from Hamlet above because this comic interlude serves simultaneously to relieve the grimness of Hamlet's vengeful monomaniacal behavior (by allowing him to interact with the gravedigger and share some twisted jokes) and yet it also accentuates the solemnity that lurks underneath dark humor. In the "gritty"/"grimdark" fantasies that I have seen (there are movie versions, of course) or read, there is very little or no relieving the atmosphere to allow the reader to "breathe" for a moment before plunging back into the more unpleasant parts of the tale. It is unbalanced; it resembles neither the catharsis of tragedy (and certainly not) nor the removal of hubris that the best comedies obtain. There seems to be no release of any sort; the reader is to suffer through what is being portrayed, knowing that there are few messages other than "people and life and the universe is bad."

Not quite an original statement, neither is it one that encourages deep reflective reactions. It just feels unbalanced and incomplete, at least to me, not dissimilar to the stereotypical "emo" kid that moans and cries and views the world as being an unfriendly place. Maybe that's it, that this is more of a story that is enticing to (temporarily) disillusioned youth who view the dark sides of reality as being the point of reality. Then again, maybe not. It is rather telling that the audience for this seems to be mostly males from their late teens to early thirties.

As for whether or not works that feature nasty things should be published, well, there's the trickiness dealing with obscenity laws in places like the US. There's no cut-and-dried situation and while I myself, now that I'm closer to 40 than 30, prefer a more nuanced approach to mixing in the deplorable with the laudatory, I think it's better to leave it up to parents of readers under 16/18 and to the readers themselves after that age as to what they should read. Of course, I also think those in control of the reader (parents before late adolescence, adults after 18)'s reading do have the right to express those opinions and to sway those who may be persuaded. It is, after all, part of a larger cultural discourse than what any individual book could achieve on its own.

And Richard, do read Nabokov sometime. There might be some narrative tricks in Lolita, The Pale Fire, Ada, or Pnin that may be attractive to you. Or maybe not. But that's just me, a reader, exhorting others to try something that may be beneficial to them.

[Shryke]

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.......

Well, to be fair, I believe many of those have been berated to death already. Although that might have been by the people who like "darker" spec-fic.

There are certainly people who prefer their fiction be purely escapist though.

[Shryke]

A problem that I see with the "gritty"/"grimdark" fantasies is that they, like their treacly counterparts, really do not display anything resembling the full depth and breadth of human life. I quote one of the more famous scenes from Hamlet above because this comic interlude serves simultaneously to relieve the grimness of Hamlet's vengeful monomaniacal behavior (by allowing him to interact with the gravedigger and share some twisted jokes) and yet it also accentuates the solemnity that lurks underneath dark humor. In the "gritty"/"grimdark" fantasies that I have seen (there are movie versions, of course) or read, there is very little or no relieving the atmosphere to allow the reader to "breathe" for a moment before plunging back into the more unpleasant parts of the tale. It is unbalanced; it resembles neither the catharsis of tragedy (and certainly not) nor the removal of hubris that the best comedies obtain. There seems to be no release of any sort; the reader is to suffer through what is being portrayed, knowing that there are few messages other than "people and life and the universe is bad."

Not quite an original statement, neither is it one that encourages deep reflective reactions. It just feels unbalanced and incomplete, at least to me, not dissimilar to the stereotypical "emo" kid that moans and cries and views the world as being an unfriendly place. Maybe that's it, that this is more of a story that is enticing to (temporarily) disillusioned youth who view the dark sides of reality as being the point of reality. Then again, maybe not. It is rather telling that the audience for this seems to be mostly males from their late teens to early thirties.

As for whether or not works that feature nasty things should be published, well, there's the trickiness dealing with obscenity laws in places like the US. There's no cut-and-dried situation and while I myself, now that I'm closer to 40 than 30, prefer a more nuanced approach to mixing in the deplorable with the laudatory, I think it's better to leave it up to parents of readers under 16/18 and to the readers themselves after that age as to what they should read. Of course, I also think those in control of the reader (parents before late adolescence, adults after 18)'s reading do have the right to express those opinions and to sway those who may be persuaded. It is, after all, part of a larger cultural discourse than what any individual book could achieve on its own.

And Richard, do read Nabokov sometime. There might be some narrative tricks in Lolita, The Pale Fire, Ada, or Pnin that may be attractive to you. Or maybe not. But that's just me, a reader, exhorting others to try something that may be beneficial to them.

This is getting kinda sad Larry. You've reached the point where you are trying to characterize people who like fiction with violence/sex/amorality/etc as emo young men. And all because you aren't a fan of that sort of shit.

Like ... seriously?

[Sci-2]

Dude, he just suggested people read Lolita. (Edit: and quote Hamlet, which also has the lines "honeying and making love over a nasty stye.") He's obviously talking about a certain depiction of sex and violence.

[Shryke]

Maybe you should reread his post. You know, focusing on the first and second paragraph.

In the "gritty"/"grimdark" fantasies that I have seen (there are movie versions, of course) or read, there is very little or no relieving the atmosphere to allow the reader to "breathe" for a moment before plunging back into the more unpleasant parts of the tale. It is unbalanced; it resembles neither the catharsis of tragedy (and certainly not) nor the removal of hubris that the best comedies obtain. There seems to be no release of any sort; the reader is to suffer through what is being portrayed, knowing that there are few messages other than "people and life and the universe is bad."

Not quite an original statement, neither is it one that encourages deep reflective reactions. It just feels unbalanced and incomplete, at least to me, not dissimilar to the stereotypical "emo" kid that moans and cries and views the world as being an unfriendly place. Maybe that's it, that this is more of a story that is enticing to (temporarily) disillusioned youth who view the dark sides of reality as being the point of reality. Then again, maybe not. It is rather telling that the audience for this seems to be mostly males from their late teens to early thirties.

[Larry.]

You misread the intent of the post.

[Arthmail]

Okay. Never buying any of Richard Morgans books again.

I'm sure hes worried.

Maybe you should reread his post. You know, focusing on the first and second paragraph.

Good luck.

[Arthmail]

You misread the intent of the post.

Perhaps its less in how he read your post, and more of how you framed yours.

[Horselover Fat]

Okay. Never buying any of Richard Morgans books again.

Yeah, I can't believe he hasn't read Nabokov, I'll forgive him this time though.

[Larry.]

Perhaps its less in how he read your post, and more of how you framed yours.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

[Verboten]

Okay it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a circular argument perpetrated by those who refuse to admit that a flaw may exist in a certain body of work and those who are gullible enough to think logic will change their minds.

My view of censorship is that it's not censorship until someone in power bans a book. Anything else is just people exercising their rights, I don't have a duty to buy anything I don't want to and if the sales of a book are impacted because of the material within, tough shit write something better next time.

[Horselover Fat]

I agree Verboten, don't buy anything you don't like. Tell other people why it sucks etc. sometimes people won't agree with you, though, about the particular reason you dislike the particular thing. Cool. Different strokes and all that.

[Sci-2]

Okay it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a circular argument perpetrated by those who refuse to admit that a flaw may exist in a certain body of work and those who are gullible enough to think logic will change their minds.

You did see the tag for this thread right? ;-)

[Arthmail]

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

I agree. But you have always been a bit quick to assume others have mistaken your meaning, than to accept that what you have posted does not say what you intend it to.

[Shryke]

You misread the intent of the post.

Maybe you can clear it up then. Cause the part I quoted? Pretty fucking offensive.

Okay it's becoming increasingly clear that this is a circular argument perpetrated by those who refuse to admit that a flaw may exist in a certain body of work and those who are gullible enough to think logic will change their minds.

Um ... ok?

So because not everyone agrees with you, this is a circular argument with people who just won't admit you are right?

My view of censorship is that it's not censorship until someone in power bans a book. Anything else is just people exercising their rights, I don't have a duty to buy anything I don't want to and if the sales of a book are impacted because of the material within, tough shit write something better next time.

Go go market forces! They always chose the right stuff.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

If a boycott of a book or author is effective what is the corrective action to make up for the boycott that you believe is censorship?

[Kalbear]

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......

Yes, that makes sense on a forum dedicated to the work of A Song of Ice and Fire - we all really hate GRRM and really wish he had cut out all the caste issues and rape and put in a bunch of faeries, elves and dwarves. That's entirely what everyone's been saying. Very good, Richard. You've pegged us all here to a T.

Or...not.

Yes, no one right now is berating Brooks et al for putting out shit, because it's been done in other threads. similarly, no one is berating goodkind in this thread because it's not about Goodkind, it's about censorship. Trust me, we have all the time in the world to berate shitty fiction on these boards; there's no need to constantly do it for all topics ever. In this case, it's called staying on topic. Which isn't about censorship.

Though it is amusing that Richard doesn't like a conversation about gays in fantasy so he steers it to censorship. Doesn't like the way that's going, he tries to steer it to the criticism of grim fantasy. I'm guessing if we opened a topic on that he'd probably try and steer it towards the depiction of rape. Then we could have a nice big circle.

Shryke, do you believe that anyone should be able to write anything they want?

If you do, do you believe that people have a right to express their opinion on that?

Now here's an interesting thought experiment: suppose you don't get people saying things like 'they shouldn't write that'. Even if from what they want that is exactly the case - that they want people not to write those things for being offended or because those words are dangerous or cause harm. Do you think that people in general saying these things can be a good thing? I do. I think that it speaks to morality and allows moralities to be changed when we talk about these things. I think that until someone says that the portrayal of rape victims in books is unrealistic, promotes silence and promotes a rape culture these things won't change. And if that means you say 'you shouldn't dehumanize the victim of rape and make them a prop in your story because it encourages people to think of rape as not a crime or not harmful' then so be it - because the discussion is a lot more important than the writer.

Another way to put it is this, shryke: do you think that child pornography where no child is actually present (such as animation, videogames, erotic novels) should be permitted?

[Kalbear]

Also, everyone should read Lolita because it's a fucking outstanding book. That it also happens to be one of the better portrayals of pedophilia and rape in a novel is a kind of icing on the cake, but that's not the real reason. It's well-written, has great prose and is deeply evocative and affecting. It provokes. It's worth it for that.

[sologdin]

everyone should read Lolita because it's a fucking outstanding book

agreed.

i usually add a "required reading" tag to books that i find completely horrible. "all'y'all gotta read this trainwreck," &c.

as an unrelated point: the controversy in these threads will generate an additional sale for mr. morgan, say, because now i am more interested in the steel remains than i had been when relying only on dry marketing copy. the negative reviews and political critiques make the text sufficiently worthy of my interest to justify purchase.

[Sci-2]

The Steel Remains is worth reading, regardless of the fact I think Morgan is utterly, stupendously, worlds-hang-in-the-balance wrong on this topic. :-)

ETA:

Go go market forces! They always chose the right stuff.

They definitely don't. I think the thing is that citizens don't much power beyond the market to affect change in media. This will result in fuck-nuts banning Gay YA in libraries, but also prevent the billionth incarnation of women-in-fridges.

I think Callan made a good point when he said there is a danger that an artist who tries to say something important will be stifled by a poor caricature of his work. Imagine if Eco was a budding author and his latest book's sales were choked by the condemnation of the Catholic Church on the charge of antisemitism.

Taking that risk into account, I still don't have a problem with moral or artistic critique. I think the key here is presenting a coherent argument, and recognizing that authors are writing to get paid and thus putting themselves at the mercy of the market.