book-banning in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.

So, for instance, a novel with a strong capitalist agenda from the US may have been banned in China, but how many socialist novels from China ever made it to the US, or Canada?

The actual censorship is relatively irrelevant - the actual forces that control as Innis phrased it, "why we attend that to which we attend to," are the ones at the end of the day that matter.

---

That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I'm not sure I understood the opening post.

I remember only one book actually getting banned in my country, The Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. The reason given was that it would create a law and order situation if the book was allowed to be sold. As far as I know the ban was never lifted, and I've never set eyes on a copy.

Was any book banned in the US in this way? Surely not?

---

No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?



No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.

---

It isn't ridiculous - the media giants are synergies. So they may not make money on a book, but another one of their companies may prosper. What people know about is severely monitored by the medias from which they receive it - print media is no different. If I wrote a book criticizing Disney, for instance, all the publications owned by Disney, including news papers and magazines either would ignore the book completely, or try to discredit it - there is a lot more political and structured scheming behind the scenes than people know.


Benedict Anderson (and he isn't a post-modern theorist so don't even go there) argues that mass print is responsible for a collective consciousness of people, and inevitably is the driving force behind nation - in that sense, the force that is banning books is necessarily tied into it. The force that decides which books are read is part of the same process - if a small press publishes you, may you will be lucky enough that a few readers notice you - there is no way to break a major market on a small press, so ultimately, except in select circles, small press books go ignored - the same is with self-published books.

As time progresses, from what I understand of the industry, the game becomes even more difficult, as things are heading toward a 1000 authors with ten sales each instead of 10 authors with 1000 sales each market. What that means is there is a bigger burden on gaining exposure.

Naturally, things like best seller lists come into play - but what exactly goes into them? They are based on the amount of books BOOKSTORES buy of said book - meaning, unless you are published in mass volume, you aren't a best seller no matter what, and even then, there is a selection process within the periodical putting out the list itself which essentially edits the books they want in there.

That is why people don't really seek to too outwardly ban holocaust denial, and racist books with any enthusiasm - any real press won't publish them, and the only people who really buy them are bigots in the first place - they become functionally harmless.

The only reason why books make the ban list in the first place is because they are promoted by other medium. The content at this point needs to display something that is controversial, yet at the same time a little bit true.

It's the same with Jesus, for instance - the Christian faith posed a contrary message than the traditional Roman doctrine, and as such, sought to undermine the authority of the empire. Numerous cults and beliefs popped up, but none showed such radical threat. None were as progressive at this point, with any political strength.


Twain is challenged, because Twain shows a portrait that people would rather forget. One would think David Duke would be on top of the most protested books, but, ironically, Judy Blume is the very top - a children's author of merit.

Why then do we challenge the books that we do? Why do we read that which we read? What makes a book challenge-worthy, or ban-worthy?

I wager it needs a little press time before it gets there, something reliant on the six media giants I mentioned earlier, and their power in determining what is read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Benedict Anderson (and he isn't a post-modern theorist so don't even go there) argues that mass print is responsible for a collective consciousness of people, and inevitably is the driving force behind nation - in that sense, the force that is banning books is necessarily tied into it. The force that decides which books are read is part of the same process - if a small press publishes you, may you will be lucky enough that a few readers notice you - there is no way to break a major market on a small press, so ultimately, except in select circles, small press books go ignored - the same is with self-published books.

---

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a business decision. If you and someone esle writes a book on the same subject with essentially the same ideas and he has selling power and you don't, you lose. Grow up and face reality. It wasn't banned. This is so childish. Publish your own book.

The criteria for banning is whether a subject is prohibitedly not allowed to be published. I see no such subject in modern day western nations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. It's a business decision. If you and someone esle writes a book on the same subject with essentially the same ideas and he has selling power and you don't, you lose. Grow up and face reality. It wasn't banned. This is so childish. Publish your own book.

The criteria for banning is whether a subject is prohibitedly not allowed to be published. I see no such subject in modern day western nations.

---

Oh yes, so what is the criteria to ban Twain? And why hasn't Duke been banned? Can you explain that?




As for an above poster on the rates of banning in communist countries - outside of academic circles, I have never really heard much about texts from communist countries other than Russian ones (and even then, it is through a lens of selection that texts seem to surface here).

So, for instance, much Western stuff was banned during the cultural revolution in China, but how many books from the Maoist era have made it to the West? How many have you guys read in the first place? It seems that in translation, there is a somewhat huge gap between May Fourth Movement authors, and contemporary authors - as if the Mao years never happened, and nothing was published. And even then, that which we have now is a minimal fraction, even of the "accepted texts".

I hear Socialist Realism from Russia is becoming accessible, though I have yet to hear about much besides a few cliche names outside of academic settings.

If we are going just within the nation though, it is clear that that which is published is that which fits the publishers agenda - equating the banning, or not publishing of books to a flaw in communism is as absurd as claiming it never happened, or happens in Western countries. Simply put, people were persecuted for being reactionary in China, or for being reactionary in Russia, but Bertold Brecht, Arther Miller and others were also brought before panels.

Where is the credibility in the argument?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

No Mona. What they seem to be crying about is that because some publisher won't publish their book they are being banned. They feel they have a right to publish whatever they want at someone else's expense. Actually it's really childish.

---

Actually I thought everyone was originally talking about the kind of petty censorship that happens in libraries when redneck conservative Christian demands they remove Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies or liberals want books removed from library shelves because it caricatures or is belittling to a racial group (yes, liberals censor too).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

Oh yes, so what is the criteria to ban Twain? And why hasn't Duke been banned? Can you explain that?

---

What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

What book by Twain is banned and by whom? I have no idea what you're talking about. I find it incredible to believe that there is any book by Twain that is even out of print.

---

He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBI

He is one of the most contested, and the one who gets some of the biggest complaints - there is a list somewhere of books by complaints and attempts at banning.

---

Are you talking about Huck Finn and the use of the word "nigger"? I supposed some schools and libraries have refused to use the book or stock it because of it (completely misguided) but I suppose schools and school libraries make decisions on books and the appropriateness of the language used. You guys are using the word "banning" inappropriately if you are referring to that. When people are referring to a society banning certain books they are referring to a complete excise from society or even being published. The only book ban that I have ever heard in contemporary life in a western country is I believe that Germany has gone to the extent of banning Hitler's Mein Kampf. How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

How publishers make business decisions, how schools pick their books for the curriculumn, how small libraries decide what to stock the shelves for a given public is not banning.

---

It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.

I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.

Regards,

Istvan

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have.

Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.

As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.

Despite it's popularity, selling 60,000 copies, bookstores won't carry John Ross' Unintended Consequences. A friend of mine had to buy it at a gun show. There is censorship in the West.

Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion :rolleyes:

Geez when I was growing up TQS, a French language basic cable channel, used to show soft-core porn at 11 on Saturdays. The English language channel Show Case had the decency to wait until after midnight.

Moreover, Sopranos and the Osbournes were shown uncensored by CTV, a public network.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OrphanPip

Howard Stern is not illegal in Canada and any Canadian shows that do get shown in the USA, like Degrassi, end up censored to remove references to abortion

---

You're right. I was just checking Wikipedia to find out when that happened.

"After a delay and outcry from Canadian subscribers, Sirius Canada added Howard Stern's Channel 100 to their lineup in early 2006."

Do you also get the Opie and Anthony Show now too? I know Michael Savage is banned from even entering the UK; so I assume his program doesn't get any radio play there.

I have no idea, I take public transit so I never listen to the radio.

JBI- So when it comes down to it, you really have 6 or so American media giants deciding what is read and what is not read anyway, more or less. Whether banned or not barriers always construct themselves, and invisible workings really decide what is read or not.

Virgil- That's ridiculous. If businesses decide what to publish on the ability to provide returns, that's the way of the world and has nothing to do with banning. Why don't you provide me with your bank savings so I can publish my book?

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning". As an artist I am largely free to create any form of art I desire (although I might suppose I should be the one complaining considering that as a result of my career in education I am actually subject to a degree of limitations of my access to "freedom of speech"... both in and outside of school... that is not applied to others). Again... I am free to create as I will; I am not assured the financial support of corporations, wealthy individuals, or the public for such work. Or are we to assume that the public... the wealthy individuals... and the corporations should be expected to support every work of art... no matter how antagonistic it may appear to their interests/beliefs/values... no matter how bad it may be...? Certainly, this is a form of self-justification for one's failure: "The publishers won't publish my books or the galleries won't show my paintings because my work is too daring... too cutting edge... it threatens the powers that be. Woe is me... poor oppressed artist that I am.":rolleyes:

I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"... literature that is often quite demanding and as a consequence has a rather limited audience. Having said as much, why should we concern ourselves over the fact that the biggest publishers may not support certain forms of literature that they suspect will be less than financially successful... or with the fact that the audience for certain forms of literature may be limited by not having the support of such? I suspect that a great deal of the literature I have read from over the centuries had a rather limited audience in its time... and in many cases (Baudelaire, Zola, Verlaine, Voltaire, the whole of British theater during the Interregnum under the Puritans, etc...) was actually blacklisted or truly banned.

Again... my question is what would be the ideal? Certainly, relying upon the market system alone leads to a gross support of those works of art that meet the demands of the largest audience... but at the expense of more experimental, challenging... or even unpopular works. Of course the wealthy patrons are always free to support those works of art and artists that they deem "best"... and this is largely the system still dominant in the traditional visual arts (painting, sculpture, etc...) which explains the lack of concern among such artists for accessibility or the wants of the mass audience.
But what is the alternative? Support through public money of works of art that may not merely be less than popular but also antagonistic to the very populace paying the taxes? And who decides what works of art get this support and which ones do not? If we decide upon a committee of artists or writers to decide upon which works of art... which musical compositions... which theatrical productions... which works of literature are deserving of public support do we not face a situation just as biased and open to abuse and neglect of truly deserving works of art as we find in a pure market system... or under the patronage of the very rich?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".

---

I'm not trying to say that unpopular speech should receive the same publicity as popular speech. What I object to is the government regulations that interfere with the market, and unfairly prejudice certain types of work, rendering potentially lucrative works unprofitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Babbalanja

It's a matter of degree. I personally consider removing a book from library shelves so the public doesn't have access to it "banning" a book, regardless of whether it can be procured by other means.

I'm pretty sure your definition of "banning" (not allowing publication) doesn't apply to the vast majority of books that are considered "banned" books.

Regards,

Istvan

---

That's right, because books aren't banned. I would agree with you if every single library in the country excluded a book for political reasons but that is not the case. If you think any book is banned, just look it up on Amazon and I bet you can buy it. No book is banned in the US today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

While my political beliefs may certainly lean far more to the left than Virgil's, I must say that I largely concur with him on this issue. It is inane to equate business decisions... decisions not to financially support this or that artist or artwork... with censorship and "banning".

---

Thank you StLukes.

Quote:

---

I might note that JBI has made it clear on more than one occasion that his leanings as a reader are toward literature that might be termed "elitist"...

---

Haha!!! Yes, if anyone is a book banner her on lit net it's JBI!!!! :lol: :lol:

JBI, when are you going to start that bonfire for the Twilight books!!! :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption. (And that's a hit. No normal network would develope such a show to begin with.) Look at the Golden Globe nominations that just came out. 3 out of 5 in the televised drama category are subscription only and seen by something like 1/15 of the audience their mediocre competitors have.

Anything with violence or graphic language is unlikely to be screened or is aired so late into the night that only insomniacs see it. I think I saw a Katt Williams performance on Comedy Central at about 2 AM once. Meanwhile, where's the Pryor, where's the Kinison, where's the Carlin, and Lenny Bruce? Why does Canada only produce toothless, unfunny garbage? Because they have laws about what kind of material is acceptable and unacceptable there. Satellite radio such as The Howard Stern Show is illegal there. But even he's been marginalized in the U.S. Slapped with repeated fines, and censored until his business was barely profitable, he moved to a subscription service, effectively cutting his audience to 1/20th the size.

As for movies like Clerks, I saw a fairly mangled version at about ten o'clock with half the words muted. When's the last time you saw A Clockwork Orange on television? This classic of cinema was banned in the United Kingdom until after the director's death in 2001. Initially, it was given an X rating by the U.S. board of censors so regular theaters and movie stores couldn't carry it.

---

I'm not so sure Mortal. If one of the major television networks felt they could make money of shows like 'Deadwood' or 'The Sopranos' they would have no hesitation in pushing them into prime time, language and violence be damned. They don't because people, by and large, are too soft-headed to appreciate quality art. People desire the tawdry denouements of 'Law and Order' or the excessive forensic bull**** of 'CSI': they have neither the ability nor the inclination to absorb the meandering beauty of a show like 'The Wire'. Russell Brand has his own show. Sam Kinison (RIP) is still largely unknown. We live in the age of morons.

Of course, the schlock that gets served up year in year out plays a significant role in promoting the need for superficial gratification and thereby keeping quality art and programming out of the mainstream. But at the end of the day, money is king.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

I have to agree, if ever so slightly, with JBI on this one. There are unseen forces of censorship at work in America today. That's why all the really good programming gets pushed to HBO, where people have to pay a premium to see it. All the best boxing is there. Regular television is a joke. Shows like The Sopranos, which eventually moved to cable, had to be neutered and watered down for public consumption.

---

Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC

Actually, your premise couldn't be further from the truth. It is based on personal preference. It is my personal opinion that the programming on HBO couldn't be much worse than it is...and if I wanted to see the same movie over and over 15 times, I'd just buy it.

---

Completely agree with you Bien. There are decency standards on the public airwaves.

List of the 100 most challenged Books between 1991 - 2000 for those who were curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Completely agree with you Bien. There are decency standards on the public airwaves.

---

HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher, they have a variety of intellectual and downright artsy programming. The Angels in America, Band of Brothers, and John Adams mini-series all came out of HBO. They also regularly adapt pulitzer prize winning plays into films for television such as Dinner With Friends or W;t. It is a watershed and refuge for out of the norm and experimental televised art, a place where risks are still taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

List of the 100 most challenged Books between 1991 - 2000 for those who were curious.

---

The most confusing appearance on that list is Where's Waldo at 88. :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher, they have a variety of intellectual and downright artsy programming. The Angels in America, Band of Brothers, and John Adams mini-series all came out of HBO. They also regularly adapt pulitzer prize winning plays into films for television such as Dinner With Friends or W;t. It is a watershed and refuge for out of the norm and experimental televised art, a place where risks are still taken.

---

I'm not disputing that. What's that got to do with banning? HBO bought the rights to those programs. It doesn't mean they were banned from regular TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Actually I thought everyone was originally talking about the kind of petty censorship that happens in libraries when redneck conservative Christian demands they remove Heather has Two Very Excited Daddies or liberals want books removed from library shelves because it caricatures or is belittling to a racial group (yes, liberals censor too).

---

I think that there are two debates here, one of the pettily tendentious fringe (Christians, fundamentalists, etc) & the other of the possibilities of some form of corporate censorship. Both are worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mortalterror

HBO isn't just about nudity, profanity, and violence Virgil. There's a lot more to it than The Sopranos, Deadwood, and Rome. In addition to Real Time With Bill Maher

---

Never use the words nudity and Bill Maher in the same paragraph, mortal. Oh, that's unpleasant.

As for the issue, I have to agree with mortal that the ratings system can unfairly push good entertainment out of the public eye. The argument has been made so many times that's it's almost banal now, but I guess it's worth repeating that ratings systems employ very superficial standard to the shows and movies they come across. Sometimes it's merely a quantitative measure of how much blood in a firefight is seen or how many thrusts in a sex scene occur. A good example of the system's shortcomings is actually the movie "Obsessed"--a so bad it's good movie starring Beyonce (really, it's hilarious). A woman--not Beyonce--sexually assault the protagonist several times in one-hundred minutes, but the movie received a PG rating merely because it wasn't graphic enough. If a nipple had escaped during the rape scene (okay that part probably wasn't hilarious), maybe the movie would have a drawn an R. As it is, almost anyone can walk into a theatre--although, this was probably straight to video--and see some pretty disturbing things. Meanwhile, tasteful nudity or poignant violence gets put on a high shelf above everyone's head.

That's the usual jab at America's rating system, and there's something to it. Sorry for the unoriginal thought, but I had to do something to get the mental image of an X rated Bill Maher out of my head.

xxxxxx

bumped