3 ms·

To which I'd say, "And?" The fact that you say something controversial doesn't change the relationship between an author and a publisher from "I'll publish you

by deong 11y ago

To which I'd say, "And?" The fact that you say something controversial doesn't change the relationship between an author and a publisher from "I'll publish your book if I think it's good and will sell" into "I'll publish your book absolutely because it makes a political stand". He's free to find another publisher, or as in this case, self-publish. This seems about as clear a case of "move along, nothing to see here" as the internet is capable of providing.

chc 11y ago
You seem to be responding to a different situation than the one presented here. At least according to the OP, this author wasn't taking a political stand — it was just a small plot detail. They didn't even ask him to change it. Somebody saw something they didn't like and attempted to punish the author in the most severe way available to them. This is their right, of course, but you have the right to do lots of lousy things, including burn books.
- mikeash 11y ago
  They did ask him to change it. And the "punishment" was just to not publish him. Hardly severe, given the large number of other publishers available, and now the pretty good option of going without a publisher altogether. "Publisher asks author to change book" hardly seems worthy of attention.
  - chc 11y ago
    According to the author, they had already killed the book before they even sent him any notes. That seems to be the biggest part of what he found so upsetting.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      The book was removed from the schedule, but I imagine it could have been reinstated (reschedule?) if the requested changes had been made. Certainly a dick move by the publisher if it went down like that, but the choice to change the offending section seems to have been there.
Onolo 11y ago
If the publisher chose not to publish the book because they don't think its good, and will sell, that is one thing. If the publisher chose not publish the book, because they agree with the politics of it, that I would dislike. As far as I can tell no one gains in a society where the right refuses to work with the left and vis-versa. That just makes society harder for everyone. What is far worse is when one side wields disproportionate power. Fiction has long played a role in advancing social morals. Imagine a case where in a society that was very, very homophobic. If books that featured lgbqt in a good light were not published... and it was considered okay because that is the publishers right, that would be a bad thing. Finally, I think our rules on situations like this should be abstracted away from poltiical or social beliefs. It is easy to say that we can judge the publishers in my hypothetical wrong, because homophobia is bad, but the publishers in this actual instance okay, because there is nothing wrong with being pro-choice. However there is a danger in that, and this is largely inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, but we have been pretty bad as society and individuals at judging what is good. Which is why I am hesitant to be okay with censoring something I disagree with, it may very well turn out that I am wrong.

by deong 11y ago

chc 11y ago

You seem to be responding to a different situation than the one presented here. At least according to the OP, this author wasn't taking a political stand — it was just a small plot detail. They didn't even ask him to change it. Somebody saw something they didn't like and attempted to punish the author in the most severe way available to them. This is their right, of course, but you have the right to do lots of lousy things, including burn books.

mikeash 11y ago
They did ask him to change it. And the "punishment" was just to not publish him. Hardly severe, given the large number of other publishers available, and now the pretty good option of going without a publisher altogether. "Publisher asks author to change book" hardly seems worthy of attention.
- chc 11y ago
  According to the author, they had already killed the book before they even sent him any notes. That seems to be the biggest part of what he found so upsetting.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    The book was removed from the schedule, but I imagine it could have been reinstated (reschedule?) if the requested changes had been made. Certainly a dick move by the publisher if it went down like that, but the choice to change the offending section seems to have been there.

Onolo 11y ago

If the publisher chose not to publish the book because they don't think its good, and will sell, that is one thing. If the publisher chose not publish the book, because they agree with the politics of it, that I would dislike. As far as I can tell no one gains in a society where the right refuses to work with the left and vis-versa. That just makes society harder for everyone. What is far worse is when one side wields disproportionate power. Fiction has long played a role in advancing social morals. Imagine a case where in a society that was very, very homophobic. If books that featured lgbqt in a good light were not published... and it was considered okay because that is the publishers right, that would be a bad thing. Finally, I think our rules on situations like this should be abstracted away from poltiical or social beliefs. It is easy to say that we can judge the publishers in my hypothetical wrong, because homophobia is bad, but the publishers in this actual instance okay, because there is nothing wrong with being pro-choice. However there is a danger in that, and this is largely inspired by http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html, but we have been pretty bad as society and individuals at judging what is good. Which is why I am hesitant to be okay with censoring something I disagree with, it may very well turn out that I am wrong.