Carly's comments

Carly's comments from the Banned Books group.

Note: Carly is no longer a member of this group.

Pandora Kat wrote: "If the the glitch was just adult material than how American Pyscho is okey and not Unfriendly Fire. Reading the article I don't see any evidence that this was a simple computer mistake.


American Psycho was not in a general category that was affected (Health, Mind & Body, Erotica, Gay & Lesbian, etc.) Many books that no one would have considered adult were affected. As for oppression of gays and lesbians, I'm not saying the effect isn't profound. But I've also known a number of gay people in positions of power in which their sexual orientation is simply not an issue. And this is in Texas. I think the gay marriage ban is wrong, but it's the only instance I can think of where the government willfully oppresses gays.

Big business really has embraced the gay community. Visit any corporate marketing department and ask what they're doing to attract gays and lesbians and they'll probably outline their marketing plan for you. The value of the GLBT community to big business isn't in population statistics but in dollars.

Also I've never heard of anyone protesting a company's policy of carrying titles which cater to the gay community. Not Amazon, not Barnes and Nobles, not Borders. There is no one to placate. There have been no restrictions. Amazon has done more to make gay titles available to the masses than any other organization. That means that people questioning their sexuality in small town Alabama can buy (affordable) gay literature that their local library and bookstore would never stock. Shouldn't that count for something?

Monique wrote: "Actually businesses do this all the time. Try renting an NC-17 or X rated movie at Blockbuster.

This is actually a classic case of a business alienating a small portion of the population in order to retain a much larger, wealthier portion (i.e., religious upper-middle class families).

Pandora Kat wrote: "When it comes to GLBT issues you have to remember they are a very vulnerable group."

Yet they are becoming less vulnerable by the minute. Businesses are going out of their way to attract gay and lesbian consumers. Because the GLBT community contains a large proportion of upwardly mobile professionals. Gay couples without children have much more spending power than nuclear families. And to say that gays are in the same position as blacks in the 50s is simply wrong. The moment I see a homosexuals-only water fountain, maybe I'll change my mind. I will grant that racism and homophobia abound in the present day. But large companies know not to mess with those issues. Doesn't it seem weird that Amazon would create categories specifically for those seeking out GLBT books and erotica and then suddenly turn those off? And then restore them within days?

The evidence suggests that certain large categories were tagged as "adult," possibly with the aim of creating a school-friendly version of Amazon. (It's rare that a school Web filter lets in anything that even mentions the word "gay.") Or Amazon was tagging these items to collect internal statistics. Obviously, Amazon had not even completely tagged its "adult" material because separate editions of the same books were tagged differently. So it makes no sense that Amazon would willingly de-rank these materials without completing the tagging process. And under no circumstances would it willingly block out those books for all users. If Amazon were actually trying to downplay or eliminate its adult materials, they would phase out these materials over time. And ideally they would have some reason to do this, maybe in the form of a push from the religious right. But there's no evidence of such a push.

If this had happened to any other group of items, American novels, foreign language books, children's DVDs, the whole thing would be a non-issue. But because a portion of the books were directed at a gay audience, it's suddenly a PR nightmare. Can't we just criticize Amazon for hiring an incompetant IT guy?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/jacketco...

So I saw a link to this on a Goodreads blog and I was naturally intrigued. This actually isn't a book-banning issue, though some seem to think it is.

Apparantly thousands of books, mainly those categorized as Gay & Lesbian and Erotica, were suddenly de-ranked, i.e. their sales ranks were unavailable. Within hours of this, bloggers were in a frenzy, Amazon was dealing with hundreds of angry e-mails, and anti-Amazon petitions were being signed. You'll notice now that all of the books that were formerly "banned" have returned to their former state. If you want to browse erotica or books on homosexuality for teens by sales rank, you can easily do this.

According to Amazon's mass response message, the whole thing is due to a glitch. I half-believe this. The books affected were in several broad categories related to sexuality and sexual health. Obviously there was a planned out script in place that would make these titles effectively invisible, probably one designed to serve schools which filter out anything even remotely questionable. I don't think Amazon meant to turn this script on. But I don't think it's fair that people must suddenly jump to the conclusion that Amazon is censoring its collection when it's been serving readers of all persuasions for all these years.

And how stupid would it be for a huge company like Amazon to willingly alienate a large portion of its consumers?

Anyway, that's my rant. If you disagree with me, you can sign the petition against Amazon's "policy" here: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/in-prot...

Or you can rant back. :)

Praetorian wrote: "What do you think, guys, are there some books we can get rid of? Are contemporary books being effectively banned by the backlist? Well, interesting argument.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/John..."

So back to this.... In the John Reed interview, he gives some examples of canonical books that could basically be expelled from the curriculum. I'd never read any of the books he mentioned nor heard of them being assigned in public schools. Maybe because most of my educational reading occurred after 2000, when I was in high school. So does this mean the canon has changed?

When I was in high school, we read a lot of Shakespeare, The House on Mango Street, Night, some Dickens, an abridged version of Les Miserables, A Separate Peace, The Scarlet Letter, The Scarlet Pimpernel, and The Odyssey, among others. We didn't read YA books, which I hear is becoming more of a trend. I think most of the books listed above could be replaced by good YA books, definitely Dickens. But I don't think Shakespeare or Homer can be replaced by contemporary authors. I think the problem with the canon taught in high schools is that most of the books are chosen for their readability and lack of complex ideas. YA books could be chosen for similar reasons. They at least get kids interested in reading and can teach them how to analyze fiction. Most kids fade out whenever they have to read something written before 1980, so if they're going to read simplistic fiction, it might as well be contemporary.

I'm really not sure what all this fuss is about. Abridged books exist for a certain audience, not an audience that wants its books censored, just an audience that prefers speed to accuracy. If that doesn't include you, read the fine print whenever you pick up a classic (it usually isn't that fine). In actuality, some books are preferably read in an abridged form. Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, anyone?

Also, I can see why The Count of Monte Cristo is so frequently abridged. It's an action novel from a time when people could spend 1300 pages on an action novel. And it doesn't really have the depth that would cause a modern reader to find every word indispensible. Les Miserables is in the same boat. The longer works of Dickens as well.

I never suggested that certain books were banned just because they're popular & exciting. However, popularity is usually the first criteria for a book to be banned. Thousands upon thousands of books present a positive portrayal of witchcraft, but these books aren't even examined unless they are widely read & therefore pose a threat. I really think that A Wrinkle in Time was picked out of a crowd of similar books because it was a book that lots of children enjoyed. Like Wendy suggested, no one's going out of their way to ban the thousands of trashy vampire books because they simply don't have the millions of readers that Harry Potter does.

Makes sense. Usually the first criteria for banning a book in the US has nothing to do with how offensive the material is; it usually has more to do with how popular the book is among the nation's youth. In the view of your average fundamentalist, any book that children get excited about is bound to contain some sinful, seductive ideas. Which is sometimes true & accounts for those rubbish books on the banned list. But personally, I can't wait to have kids so I can recommend banned books to them.

I highly doubt a book could be banned in America for being "anti-totalitarian." In public school, most of the required reading is anti-totalitarian. Take, for example 1984, Brave New World, Anthem by Ayn Rand, and Night by Elie Wiesel, all of which I read in Texan public schools. Actually A Wrinkle in Time was challenged for the same reason as the Harry Potter books: a positive portrayal of witchcraft. One complaint referred to some senseless crap about anti-Christian sentiments, I believe. Weird considering that Madeline L'Engle is in that exclusive canon of great Christian children's writers which seems to only include her and C.S. Lewis.