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

[Kalbear]

Sure, you had a problem with her being portrayed a certain way, i remember that, and more than a few people asked why every character needs to be smart or well rounded when in real life that is not always the case. Any assertions that the character was ever intelligent are baseless considering how minor of a character she is. As for unchallanged, you flip flopped on the lesbian rape because everyone asked you why the fuck it mattered that the character was a lesbian. But you know what, enjoy your revisionism, though i must say that the notion of censorship came later in the conversation, after everyone pointed out what a particularily fucking stupid notion of child rape or alternate rape or torture was. Coming from the guy that thought the character should have just been a 12 year old girl instead of a lesbian, any statements that the challenges were lame holds no water.

First off, why are you bringing this up here?

I don't think I ever flip-flopped on my position there, but I'll reiterate - the most problematic part for me was that Terez was made to be a lesbian and then put into a very stereotypical situation that is fairly badly represented as a trope. I gave multiple examples of ways that her being a lesbian wasn't necessary for the scene or the book if you had to have that happen, and also gave indicators of how you could have made it significantly better by changing her character. There was never any flip-flopping, and I don't really get why you say that except for a very bad reading on your part.

The child rape part was an example of making it extra grim and gritty (or visceral, I think the word was used) while not having Terez be a lesbian. That was all it was, one way or another. I wouldn't like that much either, but it would absolutely be a way to instantly demonize Glokta. And hey, isn't the argument that lesbians shouldn't be exempt from things sucking? Same goes for kids, I'd imagine.

I didn't have as much a problem with the rape itself as others did. If you think that's me flip-flopping, I guess that's you simply reading a bunch of different people and assuming we all have the same thoughts and opinions. that's on you.

You and Sci can just draw mental circles around each other and have fun. I don't know why i keep getting dragged back into this conversation. The censorship came about because of your lack an understanding of it (or, as some have pointed out, censorship need not only come about because of law), and not because some authors fail at what they are trying to accomplish. Your alternatives for which, by the way, were far shittier than the product that we saw. It has nothing to do with being critical of a book, and more to do with the fact that you hold a candle for this subject, made some terrible assertions, and then failed to really go back and deal with what you had originaly said.

Well, it's a good thing that I'm not a professional writer. Though I have no idea what you mean by 'hold a candle for this subject'. I confess, my ideas were not thought out for months and months, and it's a good chance that my fanfic of Abercrombie's lesbian characters will not get picked up by a major publisher. I am sad. I guess it's good that I can make criticisms without having to be published and sell lots of copies then, huh?

What assertions did I not back up? There are two different threads about the subject and 3 spinoff threads, all of which I've been pretty active in. What precisely did I fail to assert? I said there were other ways the scene could have worked without her being a lesbian, and gave examples - and Abercrombie agreed with me. I said that it was a representation of a lesbian stereotype and backed up how, and that was also agreed on by the author. Now, if I didn't prove it 100% to your satisfaction I'm sorry, but saying I didn't do it at all? That's complete shit.

Next time, take your problems with me to PM.

[Richard]

Indeed, it's just a thought. A fairly worthless and insulting one.......

What the fuck ever.

It's curious, the amount of hate there is......and knee-jerk grumpy dismissiveness.......

Ho hum

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Richard,

What you choose to display of the original post is quite interesting. Why not show the entire post and respond to that?

[Kalbear]

Yes, Richard, it is. It's precisely the same kind of knee jerk response many of us got in the first place to the original response.

Perhaps it's an angry response because the original statement is so vapid and dismissing?

[TerraPrime]

Re: Arthmail

Grimness and darkness coming across as unrealistic. Suuuure. I'm reading about the sack of Constantinople right now. Very positive and uplifting. In fact, the rise of Venice is another culture built and predicated upon kindness towards others. Context is best considered from where you stand, but i'm not entirely sure where you stand.

Who the fuck said the first fucking thing about upfucklifting? Stop red-herring and try to at least engage the point that the other side is making? And those of you on the other side of the debate can take the condescending shit about "oh guess your world is all daisies and sunshine and that's why you find the grimdark so unacceptable" and fuck it till it rots. Oh, I almost forgot, fucking is not grimdark enough - y'all can rape it till it rots. Oh-la-la, c'est tres realistique!

And its hard not to draw conclusions, as some such as Richard have done, when some people continiously deride the notion of it with language that breathes disdain. When people say "teh gritty" and grimdark, its hard not to see their natural dislike coming through. I made mention of this at some previous point.

So... how would you like to see our dislike of the genre expressed, if not with language that conveys that emotion?

And why so much hand-wringing over this, anyway? Did you take a look at the Goodkind thread and the Highland Sheikh threads on the type of derision and belittling that those bad style of writing received? This is grade-school PG scale stuff in comparison.

Re: Richard

It's curious, the amount of hate there is......and knee-jerk grumpy dismissiveness.......

Ho hum

I see that my Dislike has leveled up to "Hatred" now. Do I get an extra attack per round at this new level? Or maybe I get an extra 5% resistance to red-herring?

But yes, I'll cop to grumpy. You got me there.

Oh, yeah, obligatoryFatwa!!!!

[Sci-2]

Out of curiosity, are we ultimately down to nuance at this point? That charges of a book being not bad or good but immoral in some way carries weight?

I mean, what are we actually arguing here? That art should not be judged? That one's critics carry power to slander an author unintentionally? That complaints of sexism or what have you will create a culture where good art fails to be published?

That one might be missing the purpose of books 1-3 and thus, in affecting the author's ability to publish, lost lose the ultimately positive or at least thought provoking material in books 4-7?

And if in the midst of these concerns, is there a "should" leveled against critics? That they should or should not do something? What is the responsibility of the critics?

I mean, since no one is endorsing legal censorship, we seem to be arguing about the responsibility and morality of critics.

[Callan S.]

Does anybody else feel like they need two tabs of LSD to stay abreast of the conversation? ;-)

Only two? See, this is where I was going wrong!

No, I don't see anything particularly odd or hypocritical about telling an author that their use of lesbian rape is problematic

Well, the question wasn't about telling just the author (in some kind of private message). I mean, surely you acknowledge that if a peer estemes your judgement and you said, for example, that a certain type of sneaker is shit, that would reduce the likely hood of them buying that sneaker? Even if you had phrased it as if speaking to the maker of the sneaker, if a peer hear its, the same result occurs. That's the crux of the question.

On the idea of censorship, I've always just assumed it doesn't exist as a thing, it's more the result of many, many subjective consciences aligned, for the time being, in much the same way on a topic. In as much I don't think I've skipped the topic by pitching questions to individual consciences.

I do not see where an individual's choice to abide by what their conscience dictates or not has anything to do with whether or not an individual's choice to buy a book or not constitutes censorship. Censorship necessitates the imposition of some sort of coercive force upon third parties to prevent them from partaking of a censored work of literature.

As I said above, ostrification is the method of coercion.

Do you really want to be the only person who like that 'sexist trash' book? No.

In a highly social species, ostrification seems quite a coercive force to me, atleast.

Also see my note above suggesting that when you feel your right, the default is that you are unlikely to feel you are applying coercion at all.

[Callan S.]

And if in the midst of these concerns, is there a "should" leveled against critics? That they should or should not do something? What is the responsibility of the critics?

It'll sound like more acid tabs from me Sci, but can you acknowledge how you refer to the idea of 'responsibilities' as if they could just somehow exist (and it's merely a matter of finding them)? It's like your refering to a set of rules as much as in chess bishops only move on diagnals, but your trying to figure those rules.

If not, it's really hard to talk through - it's like your trying to determine what someone (other than you) responsibilities are.

[Sci-2]

@Callan - What do you think the responsibilities of critics are? What are you ultimate concerns about criticism of sexual depiction, or the accusation of sexism/homophobia/racism/etc with regards to fiction?

Don't get me wrong, I think we're actually getting somewhere, in large part to your courtesy and calm, but I don't think my brain capacity is sufficient to take this too far into the abstract.

[Galactus]

Well, the question wasn't about telling just the author (in some kind of private message). I mean, surely you acknowledge that if a peer estemes your judgement and you said, for example, that a certain type of sneaker is shit, that would reduce the likely hood of them buying that sneaker? Even if you had phrased it as if speaking to the maker of the sneaker, if a peer hear its, the same result occurs. That's the crux of the question.

Yes, and it's called fucking consumer's advocacy. Criticism is there so that people don't buy shit. Authors have absolutely no right to have people buy their stuff. The onus lies on THEM to persuade readers to consume their stuff.

[sologdin]

ari--

that's a nasty fatwa that you've issued against the artist's right to a captive audience. stop censoring the job creators!

[The Kassi (mark two)]

As I said above, ostrification is the method of coercion.

Do you really want to be the only person who like that 'sexist trash' book? No.

In a highly social species, ostrification seems quite a coercive force to me, atleast.

Show me where this is a realistic consequence, because in the year twenty eleven in the United States of America, reading a trashy sexist novels about gals who engage in pseudo-bestiality and pseudo-necrophilia may cause people to ask the question "Really, you actually like Anita Blake? Seriously?" in the event that they are unfortunate enough to have been exposed to the work, and are able to recognize it, but I have never seen a mass shunning result from answering that question the 'wrong' way.

I also doubt Hamilton is experiencing money troubles.

GRRM seems to be doing well for himself to, and his fans remain unjudged despite the fact that the very first novel in his most popular series romanticizes a sexual relationship between Conan the Barbarian and a thirteen year old.

[Shryke]

Shryke,

What coersive force is used in a boycott to prevent people from buying or reading a particular work or author?

Why is coersive force required? A boycott works through the market by making something unprofitable to do and thus stopping it from being done. The purpose of a boycott is to make a certain type of thing not be made or done because you don't like that thing or action. And you do this by making said thing or action so unprofitable/unpopular/etc that no one dares do it.

If I arrange a country-wide boycott of racist literature, what am I doing other then attempting to stop the production of racist literature by making it unprofitable?

Now if you wanna keep the definition of censorship so rigid as to not include this type of attempt at suppression, sure. Then just come up with another word for it (like "farbledoo") and replace pretty much every instance of the word "censorship" with that, because that's pretty much what was being talked about. Shit, Richard never mentioned the word "censorship" at all. I think I was the first to bring it up and deliberately used the term "soft censorship" to imply a far less direct and powerful method then say, burning all copies of a book or some such.

[Shryke]

And if in the midst of these concerns, is there a "should" leveled against critics? That they should or should not do something? What is the responsibility of the critics?

I mean, since no one is endorsing legal censorship, we seem to be arguing about the responsibility and morality of critics.

I'd say it's certainly the question being circled round over and over again. I think we are having trouble getting there because while many seem willing to acknowledge the power of criticism to effect art, they aren't really walking that concept a few steps forward to it's rather logical conclusion that criticism is then itself some part of the overall societal process of artistic creation.

And that because of this, to put it one way, criticism itself can be subject to criticism. One can talk about good criticism, bad criticism, and criticism that "should not be done".

Which is really at the heart of what started this, with some people criticizing the criticism of work X, that said "books shouldn't do this", by saying "critics shouldn't say 'books shouldn't do this' because it limits artistic expression by forcing art to conform to a particular moral/sociological/etc standard".

[Callan S.]

Yes, and it's called fucking consumer's advocacy. Criticism is there so that people don't buy shit. Authors have absolutely no right to have people buy their stuff. The onus lies on THEM to persuade readers to consume their stuff.

Okay, so you like it when it's in your favour. Now what happens when someones calling a product you like, shit? And they are convincing alot of other people simply though calling it shit. Maybe some claims are made about it's contents which you find missplaced, but they just keep going on and on.

Well, the real question is, what if it happens to be you doing this?

Or do you have a god like sense of what is shit and what isn't and never get it wrong?

I mean, human default is to think of oneself as infallable. It's why so many young men in their early 20's die behind the wheel of a car. If one were infallable, I'd agree on your point about consumer advocacy.

I'm not trying to argue you into silence. I think it's possible to act while realising ones actions may actually be wrong. But if you can't act unless you think your 100% right...I dunno? Were doomed?

Sci,

What do you think the responsibilities of critics are?

I know you don't want to hit the abstract. So, if there are some critics out there who are trying to form a charter of rules they might decide to critique by and they want my personal input (after they bring me a martini, of course), I get that as a question. Are you asking that? Do you have a martini close by? :)

Or are you asking what responsibilities I think critics have, whether they fucking like it or not?

If it's the former, I'd like to hear what restraints and enablements they might consider to have in their ruleset (which they may then act by for X amount of time) and I'd pitch some ideas.

I have real trouble even thinking of making up such ideas without hearing them and getting an idea of their direction. If you ask me for answers before that, well then either I have to abandon what I say if their life would have to be radically changed to fit what I said, or I demand they radically change their life to fit my words?

The Kassi,

Show me where this is a realistic consequence

In terms of ostrification? Oh well, let's find out.

Hands up everyone who's read and enjoyed immensely, Twilight?

Is that a sound of crickets?

There's probably a forum of them/for them elsewhere, but that's a kind of ostrification. Perhaps try to find a twilight focused forum and argue as reasoned as you can about the books content and see how included you are?

Other than that, some authors, unless they go and get a stupid drug habit, may have already made enough money to live nicely the rest of their life. For them, I'd pay your point completely. Just double check the income first, eh!

[Larry.]

I get the sense that you've chased the semantic tail so often that you've become dizzy and as a result have somehow conflated criticism with an ill-argued semi-case for (it seems) what erroneously is construed as "censorship." The roles of critics are several: 1) To examine the qualities of a work at hand, 2) To continue to engage in a further literary discussion with other critics, past and present and likely future, about the artistic qualities of the work at hand, 3) To connect Reader, Author, and Text, without privileging one over the other.

Criticism is many things, but it is not a governmental body suppressing political speech (in this particular case, the political speech inherent within a written text). If anything, it is a continuation of speech, where the conversation begun by an author having a text published is furthered by the critic's analysis of what that text "says" and how it is said. Critical conversations are almost never carried on with a single voice; divers voices argue, debate, and try to hash out further grounds of discussion about the merits and deficiencies of the text presented by the Author. Criticism does not stifle speech as much as it tests the validity of speech (after all, one is free to proclaim until they are blue in the face that Eye of Argon is an artistic masterpiece, but it is likely the dissent would outweigh the support).

To claim that the mechanics in which the free speech of those who are commenting upon the text (and thus furthering the conversation begun by said text) is somehow acting as a restraint on the speech associated with the text is frankly Doublespeak.

[Galactus]

Okay, so you like it when it's in your favour. Now what happens when someones calling a product you like, shit? And they are convincing alot of other people simply though calling it shit. Maybe some claims are made about it's contents which you find missplaced, but they just keep going on and on.

I don't get it. I like stuff, other people don't necessarily like the same stuff (for all sorts of reasons) if you thnk something is bad you're probably going to tell people to avoid it, it's only common sense.

Really don't see what the problem is. Authors don't have a right to be read.

[Grogsmash]

And that because of this, to put it one way, criticism itself can be subject to criticism. One can talk about good criticism, bad criticism, and criticism that "should not be done".

Which is really at the heart of what started this, with some people criticizing the criticism of work X, that said "books shouldn't do this", by saying "critics shouldn't say 'books shouldn't do this' because it limits artistic expression by forcing art to conform to a particular moral/sociological/etc standard".

Exactly. I have been lurking this thread, not wanting to deal with all the vitriol by some people, but I just had to quote that because it so perfectly captures my feelings on this subject. Not all criticism is equal and sometimes criticism that is completely over the top and hateful does quite a bit of harm and makes it less likely that authors in the future will want to even approach or deal with the subject. How is this even under dispute? Also it amuses me to no end that in a thread on censorship and what it is, we aren't allowed to talk about the original criticism that started the discussion.

Also, the splitting of the original thread into multiple others I think just obscures rather than helps. Maybe instead of wanting to change the subject "because they are privileged", whatever the heck that is supposed to imply, they believe in good faith the issues are tied together? Nah, can't be, it probably is because they are privileged.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke, Callan,

Is suggesting a book is bad and should not be read for X reason really equivilent to destroying books or putting criminal penalties in place if you are found to be in possession of a given book or author's works?

Grogsmash,

There are methods of review and criticism that I dislike but if we then say that any review or critique that is in the disfavored format is somehow banned is that ban not censorship as well. I believe the method of critique should be open to criticism as well but that is not to say such disfavored methods of review should be subject to an outright ban other than to be ignored.

[Sci-2]

Also, the splitting of the original thread into multiple others I think just obscures rather than helps. Maybe instead of wanting to change the subject "because they are privileged", whatever the heck that is supposed to imply, they believe in good faith the issues are tied together? Nah, can't be, it probably is because they are privileged.

Verboten specifically asked a new thread be made on LGBT representation. And we can talk about the original subject (sex and violence) - I think I have multiple times but with regard to censorship rather than depiction. I may have slipped a bit there but I think it does help to have separate topics.