jump to content
my subreddits
more »
want to join? sign in or create an account in seconds|
[-]
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
subreddit:subreddit
find submissions in "subreddit"
author:username
find submissions by "username"
site:example.com
find submissions from "example.com"
url:text
search for "text" in url
selftext:text
search for "text" in self post contents
self:yes (or self:no)
include (or exclude) self posts
nsfw:yes (or nsfw:no)
include (or exclude) results marked as NSFW
e.g. subreddit:aww site:imgur.com dog
this post was submitted on Submitted on
5,362 points (90% upvoted)
shortlink:
reset password

welcome tor/books

unsubscribe from this subredditsubscribe to this subreddit5,449,236 readerssubscribers
1,804 users here nowonline

- Subreddit Rules -- Message the mods -Related SubsAMA InfoThe FAQ The Wiki

This is a moderated subreddit. It is our intent and purpose to foster and encourage in-depth discussion about all things related to books, authors, genres or publishing in a safe, supportive environment. If you're looking for help with a personal book recommendation, consult our Suggested Reading page or ask in: /r/suggestmeabook

Quick Rules:

  1. Discussion is the goal
    Do not post shallow content. All posts must be directly book related, informative, and discussion focused.
  2. Personal conduct
    Please use a civil tone and assume good faith when entering a conversation.
  3. Prohibited
    Self-promotion and promotional posts & comments, memes, image-only, video-only, personal recommendation requests, 'what's that book' and 'should I read?' requests, sales links, piracy, plagiarism, low quality book lists, spoilers without warning, sensationalist headlines. Please see extended rules for appropriate subreddits or use the multireddit buttons.
  4. Encouraged
    We love original content and self-posts! Thoughts, discussion questions, epiphanies and interesting links about authors and their work. We also encourage discussion about developments in the book world and we have a flair system.
  5. Important
    We don't allow personal recommendation posts. You can ask in our Weekly Recommendation Thread, consult our Suggested Reading or What to Read page, or post in /r/suggestmeabook.
  6. Click here for the extended rules
    Please report any comment that does not follow the rules and remember that mods have the final say.

Upcoming AMAs(ET)
Aug 18 - All day Tony Acree Author of The Speaker
Aug 19 - 3pm Chuck Wendig Author of Zeroes
Aug 20 - 5pm Joshua Mohr Author of All This Life
Aug 21 - 12pm Kim Harrison Author of The Drafter
Aug 25 - 7pm J.L. Bourne Author of Tomorrow War & Day by Day Armageddon
In The Coming Weeks Richard Kadrey, Ernest Cline, Scott Hawkins, Emily St. John Mandel, Cintra Wilson, Cheryl Della Pietra, Jim Butcher, Karin Slaughter, David Peterson, Ann Leckie, Brent Weeks, A. G. Riddle, Victoria Aveyard

Related Multireddits:

Discussion

Genres

Images

Writing

eBooks

Authors

Books/Series

Other Links:

Follow our official Twitter for updates on AMAs and the day's most popular posts!

Spoiler Policy:

  • Any post with a spoiler in the title will be removed.
  • Any comment with a spoiler that doesn't use the spoiler code will be removed.
  • Any user with an extensive history of spoiling books will be banned.
  • Spoiler tags are: #s
    for example: Spoilers about XYZattr(title) is done with:
    [Spoilers about XYZ](#s "Spoiler content here")

Explanation of our link flairs

Join our /r/bookclub

Join #books on IRC chat!

Filter by Flair

AMA

Weekly Thread(ET)

Pulitzer

ama

Join us in discussing Go Set A Watchman by Harper Lee

a community for
No problem. We won't show you that ad again. Why didn't you like it?
Oops! I didn't mean to do this.
message the moderators

MODERATORS

5361
5362
5363
submitted by lingben
Here's the full quote from her facebook page:
Signing off with thanks to all who have participated in our discussions of fiction writing today. I want to leave you with this thought: I think we are facing a new era of censorship, in the name of political correctness. There are forces at work in the book world that want to control fiction writing in terms of who "has a right" to write about what. Some even advocate the out and out censorship of older works using words we now deem wholly unacceptable. Some are critical of novels involving rape. Some argue that white novelists have no right to write about people of color; and Christians should not write novels involving Jews or topics involving Jews. I think all this is dangerous. I think we have to stand up for the freedom of fiction writers to write what they want to write, no matter how offensive it might be to some one else. We must stand up for fiction as a place where transgressive behavior and ideas can be explored. We must stand up for freedom in the arts. I think we have to be willing to stand up for the despised. It is always a matter of personal choice whether one buys or reads a book. No one can make you do it. But internet campaigns to destroy authors accused of inappropriate subject matter or attitudes are dangerous to us all. That's my take on it. Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author. Comments welcome. I will see you tomorrow.
edit: Rice's comments above dovetail with this recent article about a controversial book which is getting some major flak for its storyline
top 200 commentsshow 500
[–]Hankhank1 708 points709 points710 points  (45 children)
It's remarkable to me that so few people on this thread have actually taken the time to, you know, read what Rice wrote.
[–]Orlitoq 1122 points1123 points1124 points  (441 children)
Well, she sure aint wrong...
[–]zomgfixit 875 points876 points877 points  (406 children)
The thing that people forgot about is offense doesn't mean illegal. Offense doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong, just that you don't like it. And not liking something doesn't make it illegal.
[–]Watch_The_Karma_Burn 800 points801 points802 points  (62 children)
One of my favorite quotes.
"Offense is taken, not given."
Took me a minute to digest when I first heard it, but after, I have to say it has had a profound effect on most aspects of my life.
[–]whatwatwhutwut 208 points209 points210 points  (41 children)
I get the impression that this idiom was always meant to play off of the expression "to take offence" and yet it seems to ignore the expression "to give offence" in the process. The implication that offence is simply a volitional process unduly heaps blame on the listener/reader. It's all well and good to recognize that hypersensitivity can ultimately be a thing, but we should not lump all offence into the same category. Not to mention that the implication that words themselves have no power is not entirely accurate. Even the words we choose can have large impacts in the aggregate when it comes to things like social perceptions. So I think that in general we do have a capacity to control the extent to which we are offended, but I don't think that should be taken as giving carte blanche for people to speak without consideration for those listening.
Just my two cents.
[–]Watch_The_Karma_Burn 263 points264 points265 points  (18 children)
I guess this is where we disagree. I don't think to write you must take into consideration your listener... of course you CAN, and probably SHOULD... but it shouldn't be a requisite. I think you are getting in a bad habit if you're writing while thinking "gee I hope I don't offend anyone with this."
For example, in life when something offends me I think on this quote. Why am I offended? What is it that offends me about the statement/action?
In a lot of instances thinking on the quote, I'll find my gut reaction to be an emotional one, a reaction that is only as extreme as my own response.
But on the other hand, there will be times where I'll think on the statement/action... and consiously TAKE offense to it.
When I say it had a profound effect on me I wasn't kidding. I've found myself a lot less stressed to nonsense "offensive" things, as well as a lot more serious about what actually offends me. It's given me clarity.
[–]vadergeek 131 points132 points133 points  (138 children)
When did someone last forget that? Who here is claiming that anyone is trying to criminalize offensiveness?
[–]LeftZer0 59 points60 points61 points  (35 children)
While fighting for social justice is a right cause, there are extremists who go way too far and would, if they could, criminalize what they consider offensive. Anne Rice is describing groups that want to suppress white novelists from writing about people of color because that's offensive for them, for example.
[–]vadergeek 101 points102 points103 points  (21 children)
Rice is describing groups that criticize and pressure people, perhaps to an excessive extent, but nothing in here suggests she thinks things are about to be banned.
[–]rpschamp 121 points122 points123 points  (9 children)
Even if Rice didn't address people who want to ban certain forms of free speech, these people do exist. Also, changing the wording of older books is just as bad as banning free speech. Censorship is harmful in all forms, whether it's done by the government or the academic community.
[–]Storm-Crow comment score below threshold-39 points-38 points-37 points  (79 children)
The idea that people are trying to criminalize offensiveness is a delusion caused by an echo chamber analyzing an echo chamber.
The good thing about reddit (like most social forums) is it has nets that basically capture enormous amounts of insanely fucking dumb people and put them in an isolated spot to be stupid together so you don't have to deal with them on an overwhelming basis but rather an incidental one.
So for example if you went over to /r/kotakuinaction or /r/tumblrinaction most people absolutely believe that tons of people are mobilizing to try to take away their right to free speech. They have links to people doing just that and absolutely lose their minds over it.
What they're not understanding is they're either viewing:
a: troll blogs/posts
b: people in the same echo-idiot environment they are. For example if you search certain tags on tumblr like "TERF" you are absolutely going to get a collection of nutcases, much like how if you go to kotakuinaction you will get a collection of nutcases.
There are people who would "criminalize offensiveness" but they're too busy being an extreme minority trapped in an echo chamber. Occasionally they leak in extremely small numbers.
[–]GTS250 66 points67 points68 points  (19 children)
So... what?
The idea that people are trying to criminalize offensiveness is a delusion caused by an echo chamber analyzing an echo chamber.
followed by
There are people who would "criminalize offensiveness"
You directly contradicted yourself. I mean, if your point is that these people are in the minority, make that point, but don't try to bullshit your way through.
[–]alfredbester -2 points-1 points0 points  (3 children)
I don't believe your analysis is correct.
[–]Storm-Crow 3 points4 points5 points  (1 child)
You should tell me why. I'm not just going to like automatically assume you're wrong or anything, especially if your argument is backed up and makes sense.
[–]unnatural_rightsPersonal Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant 80 points81 points82 points  (88 children)
Conversely, the thing many people forget is that someone saying "this is offensive, take it down" isn't the same thing as them saying "it should be illegal to say what you've said". They're just saying "I was offended and think you shouldn't do/say the thing you did/said, because it's insensitive/offensive/wrong/etc". It should be a respect-based interaction, not a legal one.
And many people have decided they have an obligation to be as offensive as possible, then cloak their offensiveness in the guise of speech rights - which is, frankly, a derogation of the implicit responsibilities toward others which our rights demand we fulfill.
[–]IamRooseBoltonAMA 322 points323 points324 points  (32 children)
But that's not all that's happening. Take, for instance, Omar Mohammed at the University of Michigan who wrote a satirical piece for his college newspaper wherein he mocked the idea of "micro aggressions." That was enough to get him thrown off the paper, his apartment egged, and people painted "everyone hates you, you violent prick" across his door. Sure, they might not make it illegal, but they will make sure you lose any platform from which to speak.
[–]Watch_The_Karma_Burn 179 points180 points181 points  (15 children)
You can't have your cake and eat it to. For free speech, especially in regards to the topic at hand, fiction writing, you have to take the good with the bad.
She's aiming this comment at the social justice warriors that are getting more and more numerous nowadays. Her point that just because you are offended by someone's writing, doesn't mean you should organize to end their career is a pertinent one. She's not saying there isn't a right to critique, but to stifle voices and actively organize to ruin people for writing something you may disagree with or for using words you may find offensive is bad for literature as a whole.
At least that's how I took what she said.
[–][deleted]  (21 children)deleted/removed
[deleted]
    [–]connor24_22 26 points27 points28 points  (22 children)
    I completely agree and many people are forgetting this. What people are misunderstanding, or rather the definition is interpreted differently by different people, is that political correctness does not mean you can't say what you want.
    Over the past several months I have seen many insensitive, ignorant comments justified by people claiming society is too PC. Thinking the society you live in is too PC does not give anyone a free pass to be an asshole.
    [–]American____ 44 points45 points46 points  (10 children)
    i think im probably in the minority here but i don't think were too PC at all. my white friends say the n word all the time. cause theyre fucking stupid. And when someone tells them they probably shouldnt they say, "Ugh society is too PC" well...go ahead and say the n word more publicly and see if what happens. I don't think it's "too PC" to expect people not to be racst.
    [–]TaiBoBetsy 16 points17 points18 points  (33 children)
    So true. I honestly think this stems back to how people misinterpret Eleanor Roosevelt's excellent quote: "“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
    Thinking that it's WRONG to speak anything harsh or rude in the world, when what's it's saying is that you need to take responsibility for what you allow to affect you NEGATIVELY. You don't HAVE to CHOOSE to be hurt by something. You have the choice, no matter how tough it might be, to instead get MOTIVATED by it.
    If they could teach one single thing in first grade or preschool, I'd want this to be it.
    [–]Andures 38 points39 points40 points  (27 children)
    I don't like this interpretation. It makes it sound like it is more admirable to "choose" not to be offended, and that being offended is something wilful. This attitude removes all responsibility from the speaker of rudeness, enabling offensiveness and rudeness in a way.
    [–]TaiBoBetsy 73 points74 points75 points  (12 children)
    Nonsense. Rude is rude. You just don't have to give them power over your emotional state.
    [–]rsyay 0 points1 point2 points  (25 children)
    People are literally offended by anything these days, times are changing
    [–]jonblaze32 117 points118 points119 points  (10 children)
    It may be that people were always offended, it is just that we hear about it more because there are new mediums of information transfer.
    [–]waterclassic 95 points96 points97 points  (3 children)
    In the same vein, people are more likely to speak out when they know others support them or feel the same way. It's likely people in the past were just as upset with the world around them, but many felt alone in their anger.
    [–]animebop 29 points30 points31 points  (5 children)
    How far do you have to go back in history until "black people are human beings and deserve to be treated the same as white people" would be a sentence that ruined you?
    Or how about "I am a member of the communist party."
    I mean, a black guy was killed for whistling at a white woman less than 75 years ago, and his killers got off Scott free. That was the punishment for stepping out of line. Now it's what, your publisher drops you?
    [–]Afunfact comment score below threshold-22 points-21 points-20 points  (7 children)
    It's hard to tell if she's right. She hasn't given a single example to back up her statement.
    [–]knowpunintended 702 points703 points704 points  (131 children)
    In the last thirty years, there has been this constant refrain that political correctness is going to sanitize all media. That's at least thirty years, mind. I'm too young to know if it was being said before that although I strongly suspect it was.
    More books are published today than at any point in history. Authors of any and all persuasions are more common. More films and television shows in more diverse settings than at any point in history. We live in the least censored period of human history.
    There were more female authors in the twentieth century than in the previous two thousand years. Anne Rice is a hugely successful author who wrote about pretty bisexual vampires in the nineties. I think her rallying cry against censorship is pretty misplaced.
    Are there crazies who try to have things censored? Yes. There always have been. Anybody who thinks we live in world that is actually significantly censored is living in a very strange part of the world, though.
    There is almost no governmental censorship. All attempts of social censorship inevitably invite counter attempts and the resulting controversy usually bring even more attention to it. Is censorship something we should still be wary of? Of course. If you actually consider what happens in the world (instead of the lunatic fringe groups you find on Reddit or Tumblr or Twitter), though, you're being very foolish or incredibly disingenuous to suggest we are facing "a new era of censorship".
    I find it grotesque to watch people stoke their outrage and contempt over imagined slights. I believe in freedom of the arts. I believe that the answer to objectionable art is more art, not less.
    Before you complain about the evils of political correctness, though, take a minute. In the eighties, people complained that political correctness scolded them from saying nigger. In the nineties they complained it said they shouldn't say faggot. History is rarely on the side of people who complain about political correctness because it is, at its core, an attempt to avoid saying hurtful things to people.
    [–]Vladimir_Is_Pootin 117 points118 points119 points  (17 children)
    There could be ten thousand state permitted books in one country and 1 thousand books in a much smaller, freer country.
    There may not be much government censorship, but there is corporate censorship, which is pretty bad if not checked. In the west, it's corporate censorship that's a problem.
    [–]macweirdo42 150 points151 points152 points  (28 children)
    Ironically, I think attacking political correctness is in itself a form of censorship. Look, I am all for being able to say whatever the hell you want, even if others find it offensive. But part of that is, I believe you should have the right to complain if you do find something offensive. If people aren't allowed to complain about things they find offensive, that's just as bad as outright banning those offensive things in the first place.
    [–]aussiekinga 160 points161 points162 points  (52 children)
    Is this not what Fahrenheit 451 pretty much predicted, albeit in a little more extreme form? That because of social pressure and political correctness, not government censorship, books would eventually become censored.
    [–]Dis_co 281 points282 points283 points  (2 children)
    "Bigger the population, the more minorities. Don't step on the toes of the dog lovers, the cat lovers, doctors, lawyers, merchants, chiefs, Mormons, Baptists, Unitarians, second-generation Chinese, Swedes, Italians, Germans, Texans, Brooklynites, Irishmen, people from Oregon or Mexico. The people in this book, this play, this TV serial are not meant to represent any actual painters, cartographers, mechanics anywhere. The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that!... Authors, full of evil thoughts, lock up your typewriters. They did."
    [–]Zorak30 53 points54 points55 points  (3 children)
    What I see happening now is the masses waiting for the people they respect to tell them what they should think. Once that happens twitter goes crazy and stories become viral. It totally reminds of the room Montag's wife was in all the time. All she cared about was what other people she didn't even know in real life thought.
    [–]Nerf551987 66 points67 points68 points  (10 children)
    Is this not what Fahrenheit 451 pretty much predicted, albeit in a little more extreme form?
    Not at all. Fahrenheit 451 predicted people would be too involved in television to read.
    [–]aussiekinga 74 points75 points76 points  (4 children)
    You might want to re-read it. That isn't how the lack of books came about in F451 at all. Sure it might be the eventual outcome, that people were focused on shows more, but it was not the reason books fell out of favour.
    [–]bakgwailo 112 points113 points114 points  (3 children)
    Well, according to the author, I believe, the main statement was supposed to be that people would become mindless via mass media and reading would become marginalized. At the same time, PC pressure from minority groups would begin to slowly censor and ban literature with controversial meanings. Over time the public's apathy lead to the out right destruction/loss of books, and it was a more will of the people kind of thing that lead to the government program to burn them all.
    [–]aussiekinga 34 points35 points36 points  (2 children)
    That is all true and in line with what I said.
    What I responded to was saying that it was because "people would be too involved in television to read". That is an element of it, but a small one and not one that is focused on by Bradbury in the novel. To make it the main reason, as the person I responded to was, is incorrect.
    Bradbury mentioned 'new media' but talks more about the general pace of life increasing being the cause for a low attention span and thus books being abridged. He spends even more time talking about the minority's complaining and political correctness causing censorship of books.
    [–]Gorgoo 1 point2 points3 points  (21 children)
    Nah, Fahrenheit 451 is totally about government censorship.
    I mean, the government manipulated political norms to get their laws passed, but the story was all about what happened after that. If you were found with books, you weren't shunned or anything. Your house was burned down and you were arrested. That's totally government censorship.
    Plus, it isn't really a prediction of our time period, so much as an observation of politics at the time of its publication. When Fahrenheit 451 was released in the midst of the Red Scare, social censorship was far worse than it is now. The government was regularly investigating and attempting to slander any anti-establishment groups, playing on an exaggerated fear of Communism.
    The book really was about government censorship; they just used social norms as a way to sneak pro-censorship legislation into place. And that's not exactly what's happening these days.
    [–]scroam 152 points153 points154 points  (16 children)
    According to the author, Fahrenheit 451 is not about government censorship.
    He explicitly says it is not about government censorship or McCarthyism, but about television making us feel falsely satisfied and full of useless crap while destroying our desire for true knowledge.
    Bradbury's point was that people would want to give up books willingly due to societal pressure, which would be more powerful than government censorship.
    [–]LeftZer0 38 points39 points40 points  (2 children)
    That's not what I took from the book. I have read it a while ago, but I remember that the people starting to burn books and pressuring the government into censoring them. It was a book about society rejecting books, not books being censored by a government.
    [–]Iwant2seeUrDick 81 points82 points83 points  (6 children)
    People confuse being able to say what they want with being able to say what they want without reprecussions. You can freely tell your boss to fuck himself, but you're prolly getting fired.
    [–]qatalyst9 40 points41 points42 points  (6 children)
    People these days are undoubtedly too touchy about certain subjects. There is obviously a fine line before one becomes offensive but people should still be able to say and do what they want. I agree entirely with simply "ignor[ing] what you find offensive."
    [–]TheEndlessRumspringa 154 points155 points156 points  (32 children)
    What author is suffering from social censorship? Do people just love to feel persecuted? Or can they not deal with any form of criticism?
    [–]Ptylerdactyl 72 points73 points74 points  (5 children)
    Ann Rice has a long history of smelling conspiracy and going into attack mode.
    [–]5cBurro 15 points16 points17 points  (1 child)
    The answer to your second question is "yes." The exception being people who are actually persecuted.
    [–]Neptune9825 comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points  (5 children)
    'Social censorship'? Is that what it's called when people don't like your book now?
    [–]Slayers_DreamThe Metamorphosis 56 points57 points58 points  (24 children)
    Nobody is trying to make offensive works illegal. All they're doing is expressing their dislike of it, which is definitely their right. Just because you have a right to write a book, society has the choice to not view your book because they hate it. You have a right to speak, you do not have a right to be heard.
    [–]williamj35 149 points150 points151 points  (103 children)
    Arguments like Rice's attack a straw man. They falsely equate criticisms of content and/or of the politics of authorship with efforts to censor. To suggest that Styron should not have written Confessions of Nat Turner, for example, is not at all to suggest that white authors should be banned from writing black narrators. Even to say that all white authors ought to refrain from writing black narrators is still not to say that they should be banned from doing so. Rice (and so many authors like her) feel implicated by certain criticisms and then attempt to defend themselves from those criticisms by framing their critics as censors.
    Reader: This is offensive! Why are you writing this crap?
    Author: Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!
    Instead of crying censor where there is none, engage in the actual arguments of your critics. Or, if there is any real threat of censorship, point to that threat instead of the boogeyman called "political correctness."
    [–]BlahBlah1234566 108 points109 points110 points  (5 children)
    It's fine to dislike a particular book, or to find it distasteful. That is personal opinion which collectively is societal opinion. It may make the book a commercial flop. Also fine.
    What I find wrong, and I think should be avoided to an extreme extent is collective opinion suppressing relatively selective groups. If one body or institution wants to find a book good or bad, let it. Judge it lesser based on its collective assessments. Threatening undue and direct harm to it based on the review of one book is bad - regardless of if critique comes from the left or right.
    "The Color Purple" won a Pulitzer, and faces censorship often. Should someone have been able to directly assault the Pulitzer foundation prior to award if they considered the book offensive personally? Should they have influence over which books are awarded Pulitzers? I don't think so, and I think true independence in recognition is crucial.
    [–]ReducedToRubble 299 points300 points301 points  (17 children)
    Authors have grappled with this subject for ages, including many contemporary classics. Farenheit 451 springs to mind since it is a book about literary censorship. At the climax, it is revealed that the book burnings were not the actions of an Authoritarian state, but the desires of a public who never wanted to be offended.
    Handwaving this whole aspect of literature away by cherry picking a one-sided example and then acting as if this is what Rice was referring to is the very definition of a strawman. You're providing the weakest possible example and then are acting as if this the only possible way to discuss it.
    I mean, for fucks sake man:
    Instead of crying censor where there is none, engage in the actual arguments of your critics.
    How else can you interpret this?
    Ignore what you find offensive. Or talk about it in a substantive way. But don't set out to censor it, or destroy the career of the offending author. Comments welcome.
    Posts like yours remind me that the allure of censorship is pervasive. When someone responds to a reasoned call for discussion with Jack Chick-esque dialogue, it shows that there is always an insidious level of self-righteous bias that runs through all cultures and political movements, and that it is that very behavior which invites censorship.
    [–]user2196 37 points38 points39 points  (3 children)
    As TeaAndCrumpetsOhMy was saying, Fahrenheit 451 isn't actually about censorship (according to Bradbury) but about TV destroying interest in literature: http://www.laweekly.com/news/ray-bradbury-fahrenheit-451-misinterpreted-2149125 . I'm commenting here to add a link and because I think they may have replied to the wrong comment.
    [–]danger_o_day 51 points52 points53 points  (16 children)
    But the "argument" of "this is offensive! Why are you writing this crap?" is no argument at all.
    And I would also say that saying no white author should write a black narrator contains the implicit argument that they ought to be prevented from it, which is censorship in intent even if they lack the means to enforce it.
    I'll rephrase Rice here and say that the arts must be free to say anything they want in any way.
    [–]Velocett 37 points38 points39 points  (5 children)
    You hit the nail on the head in regards to what bothers me about this. Plus, the fact that she only used examples of typical things far left-wingers are offended by when far right-wingers still get their jimmies rustled over, say, LGBT characters in books for young age groups definitely reeks of a clear agenda.
    Plus, I don't know if she's gotten any better about it but Anne Rice was pretty notorious for getting angry at negative reviews or criticism of her books, even if they had no political agenda and came down to finding the book poorly written or boring. I agree that no book should be censored, and also that criticism and opinions on the book should not be censored either. Criticism in itself is not censorship, however.
    [–]Tianoccio 35 points36 points37 points  (32 children)
    Except that politically correctivity is a form of censorship, a form of censorship everyone can get behind. A form of censorship with a moral high ground.
    If you let them censor certain words, if you let them edit 100 year old books, if you let them decide what we can and can't say, even if it seems like the right and just action, then you're giving up your rights.
    Those are literally the messages I took from 1984 and Fahrenheit 451, but I dunno.
    [–]SpacedOutKarmanaut 70 points71 points72 points  (22 children)
    No one is legally forcing political correctness on people. The point is, you're free to go around calling people nasty names or using racial slurs and you're free to use them in your literature. Westboro Baptist Church gets away with it all the time, and many celebrities do the same. However, just as you're free to offend other people and piss them off and they have to deal with it, you have to deal with their criticism as well. Crying "you need to tolerate my intolerance!" is just childish and hypocritical. You can spew crap, but that doesn't mean people have to put up with it.
    I think almost everyone is against banning and censoring books for stupid things like sex or profanity, including educated liberals and thoughtful Christian conservatives. We of course, do sometimes see exceptions, especially when it comes to teaching books to kids in school (a sort of censorship which I also disagree with...). Maybe Anne Rice is dealing with it from editors or publishers in a way we don't know about, but I find it hard to believe (especially without evidence) that an editor would tell someone as famous as Anne Rice "we can't publish this crap" unless they had a realllly good reason.
    I mean seriously, before you downvote, where are the masses of classic books with their language being edited to become more politically correct?
    [–]HandlebarHipster 1 point2 points3 points  (0 children)
    Well articulated :) I totally agree!
    [–]NixNachtvogel 29 points30 points31 points  (18 children)
    She's right. Especially when male authors write female characters that show even the slighted hint of sexuality or suffer at the hands of the story's antagonist, but it also extends to race, religion, and sexual orientation, too.
    One need only look at numerous Tumblr blogs to see people crying for this sort of political correctness. I'm a liberal, but I'm also a writer, and I'm sick of having to second-guess what I write when it comes to fiction.
    The New Puritans are getting their way by screaming, blogging, vlogging, and whining. It's hurting fiction. It's hurting creativity.
    [–]whatwatwhutwut 53 points54 points55 points  (6 children)
    She's right. Especially when male authors write female characters that show even the slighted hint of sexuality or suffer at the hands of the story's antagonist, but it also extends to race, religion, and sexual orientation, too.
    Pretty sure most of the comments I've heard re: George Martin have been favourable regarding his portrayals of women, and there is unquestionably overt sexuality. Now, I've seen a degree of criticism at times when it comes to sexuality when it's seemingly misplaced or unnecessary to the advancement of the plot (and maybe a little bit of hyper-vigilance against him in general), but the response was almost universally favourable. Can you think of any examples to the contrary?
    [–]Abstruse comment score below threshold-12 points-11 points-10 points  (56 children)
    Audience: We find these sort of stories offensive and don't want to read them anymore, so we refuse to buy them!
    This is not censorship
    Publishers: Audiences find these sort of stories offensive and don't want to read them anymore, so we refuse to publish them.
    This is not censorship
    Government: You cannot print this book because it is offensive.
    This is censorship
    Please learn the difference. Just because you have the legal right to publish something does not mean everyone has to read it or like it. It does not mean that a business has to waste money printing it.
    [–]clumberpie 70 points71 points72 points  (9 children)
    I think you are mixing up the smaller scope of free speech laws with a general discussion of censorship, which can come in many forms, including non-governmental. Effect of pressure are the key, not the legality. This can be done by quasi regulatory bodies (say the Comics Code), by corporate etiquette (YouTube not defending Fair Use laws, allowing groups to remove content on false grounds), even through fear-induced self-censorship (Mohammad cartoons etc.)
    [–]SlaughterMeister 205 points206 points207 points  (19 children)
    Censorship can come from non-governmental sources.
    [–]notnewsworthy 129 points130 points131 points  (6 children)
    This is absolutely fucking true. Censors, censorship boards, and other forms of non-govermental censorship have been around for centuries in all kinds of civilian and artistic endeavors.
    I don't know why people keep saying censorship is only a governmental thing. It's literally all over the history of art and entertainment in the 20th century.
    For pretty much ever, anytime someone wanted to publish or write something, others who handled distribution or presentation could say that something was offensive, or morally wrong for the public to see, and demand it be changed or simply forbid it from entering public view.
    Instead of trying to say censorship doesn't exist, people should be paying attention to what has, is, and will be censored, and whether or not it is correct moral decisions.
    EDIT: One more thing, really fast. People should see the word "censorship" a lot more like the word "propaganda" is used. Both are tools. But, you likely wouldn't call something you are doing "censorship" or "propaganda" if you agree with its use, and likely there is something you agree with the use for. We usually save these words for actions we disagree with and dislike.
    [–]SpacedOutKarmanaut 16 points17 points18 points  (3 children)
    And likewise, just because you have a legal right to write or say crazy, offensive things does not mean you're entitled to have it published. If someone like Anne Rice really thinks her writing is being censored and oppressed, she could easily publish it on her own website. I mean, I'd love to have a right to get my book published, but it aint gonna happen until I edit and polish the damn thing to make it awesome in a way people like.
    [–]xkcd_transcriber 6 points7 points8 points  (4 children)
    Title: Free Speech
    Title-text: I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
    Stats: This comic has been referenced 2245 times, representing 2.9569% of referenced xkcds.
    [–]SeattleBattles comment score below threshold-6 points-5 points-4 points  (10 children)
    If you don't like someone's criticism just ignore it. But trying to silence them in return is pretty transparently hypocritical.
    The PC police aren't knocking down anyone's door.
    [–]BoldIntrepid -1 points0 points1 point  (2 children)
    I thought I was the only one thinking everyone was getting too offended by anything nowadays
    [–]chowmaster comment score below threshold-8 points-7 points-6 points  (7 children)
    While she is correct, she is also about 20 years late in realizing this. Political Correctness is the modern equivalent to Newspeak of 1984 where there is a ministry at work determining which words are appropriate and which words should be deleted from the language. It gives way to Thoughtcrimes, where you are charged as guilty for having thoughts incongruous to the social whole or harmony of the group.
    [–]MercurysMessage comment score below threshold-10 points-9 points-8 points  (5 children)
    Political correctness is everything now. You have to be really careful what you say or do anywhere for fear of offending someone. It really is a form of censorship I agree 100%.
    [–]TesticleMeElmo comment score below threshold-9 points-8 points-7 points  (0 children)
    No shit, everybody nowadays tries to take the "out of sight, out of mind" outlook on offensive material, and believes that if they outlaw any outlook that they deem offensive, then that outlook is simply going to disappear. When really that isn't the case, more likely the offensive outlook comes back ten times stronger after being censored.
    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2015 reddit inc. All rights reserved.
    REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.
    css by /u/qtxπ Rendered by PID 1831 on app-78 at 2015-08-12 14:13:28.477267+00:00 running e2f89e5 country code: DE.
    0%
     
    10%
     
    20%
     
    30%
     
    40%
     
    50%
     
    60%
     
    70%
     
    80%
     
    90%
     
    100%