[Link[ ‘If publishers become afraid, we’re in trouble’: publishing’s cancel culture debate boils over

Publishing staff, in rows over authors from Mike Pence to Woody Allen, are voicing their reluctance to work on books they deem hateful. But is this really ‘younger refuseniks’, or a much older debate?

by Alison Flood

In the 1960s, Simon & Schuster’s co-founder Max Schuster was facing a dilemma. Albert Speer, Hitler’s chief architect and armaments minister, had written a memoir providing new insights into the workings of Nazi leadership. As Michael Korda, Schuster’s editor-in-chief, recounted in his memoir Another Life, Schuster knew it would be a huge success. “There is only one problem,” he said, “and it’s this: I do not want to see Albert Speer’s name and mine on the same book.”

In the liberal industry of publishing, the tension that exists between profit and morality is nothing new, whether it’s Schuster turning down Speer (the book was finally published by Macmillan), or the UK government introducing legislation to prevent criminals making money from writing about their crimes.

But the debate over what should be published has reached a fever pitch. Publishing staff who feel uncomfortable about working on certain titles are speaking out more often and more loudly, through open letters and on social media.

Read the full article: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jun/03/if-publishers-become-afraid-were-in-trouble-publishings-cancel-culture-debate-boils-over

[Link] Authors: end to censored versions of books is 'victory for the world of dirt'

by Alison Flood

Clean Reader app, which changes swear words and so-called offensive terms, removes all titles from online catalogue after writers protest

Chocolat author Joanne Harris is claiming a “small victory for the world of dirt” after an app that blanked out the profanities in books, replacing them with so-called clean alternatives, removed all titles from its online catalogue following a week of angry protests from writers.

The Clean Reader app, launched by a couple in Idaho in the US, has announced that after significant feedback from authors, many of whom did not want their work being sold in connection with the app, it has “taken immediate action to remove all books from our catalogue”.

Clean Reader set out to enable customers to, in its own words, “read books, not profanity”. A filter could be applied to ebooks purchased from its online store, which exchanged words that were judged to be offensive with alternatives.

Read the full article: http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/27/clean-reader-books-app-censorship-victory-authors-celebrate

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now #311 -- Potentially Offensive Word Choices

When you write, are you worried about politically correct 

word choices, such as using the word "Chicks" in a title?

When I'm writing, I'm never worried about offending feminists or malists or little spotted duckists from the planet Howardia. I also extend that to groups based on race or politics or religion or sexual preference or butter-side-up or butter-side-down or whatever else we human beings can come up with to divide us from one another.

Sorry to any of the "-ists" out there, but I just have the write the story the way it needs to be written and let the chips fall where they may.

That's not to say that I ever set out to offend intentionally, but I can't let the story suffer because someone might take something my narrators or characters say at face value and believe that's also the opinion of the author.

I like to think that people are, for the most part, smarter than that (unless they are lobbyists for special interest groups).

The Writer Will Take Your Questions Now (#245) -- Heinous Creators

Is it possible for an artist to do something so
detestable that his or her work should be banned? 

Wow. That's a tough one, primarily because as people we find it difficult to separate the creator from the work itself. In a perfect world, the work would be able to stand on its own merits and the creator's life wouldn't be taken into account when analyzing whether the work itself held value. I believe even a detestable person has the capacity to create something good (after all, in my belief system, we are created in the image of a creator, so creating comes naturally to us all in some way). 

For example, had Charles Manson written a great play, would it be "moral" to perform it because of the awful, horrible person he was? 

Personally, as long as the play itself wasn't detestable, I wouldn't hold it against a theater company who chose to perform it. But I'm sure the families of Manson's victims might feel differently -- and with good reason. 

In my own life, I know that Richard Wagner's symphonic works are often associated with Hitler, but it doesn't make me appreciate the simple beauty of the melodies any less. 

I tend to discourage wholesale banning on any official level anyway, and I prefer to leave it up to individual people and companies to make those decisions based on their beliefs, values, and clientele. For example, a family-run, community theater might find performing a Manson-penned play a distasteful endeavor and refuse to produce it, but another theater troupe might enjoy sharing the work in spite of the Manson connection. It becomes, at least to me, a matter for the individual and individuals of the company to decide for their circle of influence, not for the governmental powers that be to decide for the rest of us. 

True censorship makes me feel very, very uncomfortable, because it involves making decisions about what's best for the whole of society, and I'm not content to let others make that decision for me -- or for me to make that decision for others, except for perhaps minors in my own house.