E-readers that allow filtering language

[Andy]

There are several authors that I thoroughly enjoy reading (John Ringo is a good example in SOME of his books), but their language is off-putting, and it detracts from the reading experience. It's usually only horrible for a few chapters of a given book, but it is so distracting. I was wondering if any of the e-readers or software e-readers let you filter language to avoid the distraction?

[Victoria]

Just to be clear, are you talking about filtering out profanity? Are you looking for something that would replace profanities with milder versions (eg, damn -> darn) or symbols ($#%@), or something that would remove profanities entirely (eg, that damn cat -> that cat)?

I don't know of anything, but it's an interesting idea.

[Randy]

I wonder what TTS software does for profanity? I know it does some funky things, like "C'mon" is (or used to be) translated to "See Monday".

I used to love the Gor series by John Norman, but after the 6th or 7th book in the series, some of the erotic scenes would go on for pages and pages. I would find myself skimming through large sections of the book just to get back to the regular story. In the end, I was probably only reading 50-70% of the thick books. It would be interesting to have one eBook, with multiple edited versions.

[Charles]

Might be an interesting legal issue: altering the text of a copyrighted work without the author's permission. On the other hand, I suppose an author/publisher could opt in/out, much like whether or not text-to-speech is enabled for a given Kindle book.

[Andy]

Victoria wrote: "Just to be clear, are you talking about filtering out profanity? Are you looking for something that would replace profanities with milder versions (eg, damn -> darn) or symbols ($#%@), or something..."

That's basically it. We have a DVD player that's probably 10 yrs old that we got from Brookstone that if it detects profanity in the closed captioning it just kills the sound for a few seconds. It's clunky, but allows us to watch movies that we otherwise would have a hard time watching, since the kids rooms are all within earshot of the living room.
I'm looking for something similar for me, because pages full of profanity just gets really old after a while. To address Charles' point, I'm thinking like the settings on our DVD player - doesn't actually alter the text. I know the movie industry fought against people doing anything like this (they're very anti-choice when it comes to you making choices regarding their movies), but stopped fighting one company that did it like I describe (didn't alter the underlying DVD). I think it would work very much like what you describe, Charles.

[[deleted user]]

I'm opposed to filtering in general except self-filtering. If you don't like reading swear words read authors who don't swear. It's that simple.

The potential for misuse is extreme. For example let's imagine a city council that didn't want the town kiddies reading bad words in books and passed a law saying the library must use filtering software for all check outs. Bad, very bad.

[Andy]

Derrick wrote: "Andy,
I don't think such software is in existence for ANY e-ink ereader.

However, if you're familiar with Sigil, you can batch-edit books yourself. Just have to de-drm them then edit with Sigil.

..."

Thanks Derrick. That sounds like the way to go. Wish people didn't go all wobbly at the notion that someone may not want to have to miss a good book because of crappy language.
To Greg's point - we're agreeing without agreeing. For myself, I'm trying to self filter. I just happen to enjoy some authors who apparently aren't capable of self filtering or think all their readers want that. And further, I would much rather a city council do as you suggest, and still have kiddies read the radical ideas of (for example - most frequently banned) Mark Twain, or Rushie, or Orwell, or whoever, vs actual banning, which is the usual route of statists who disagree with words or ideas. But, an excellent point regardless.

[Jennifer]

Randy wrote: "...I used to love the Gor series by John Norman, but after the 6th or 7th book in the series, some of the erotic scenes would go on for pages and pages. I would find myself skimming through large sections of the book just to get back to the regular story. In the end, I was probably only reading 50-70% of the thick books. It would be interesting to have one eBook, with multiple edited versions. "

I felt the same way about Rise of Edymion by Dan Simmons in the Hyperion trilogy! Maybe I'm just a prude, but I really wanted to get out of the sex scenes and back to the story. I mean, do I really need to know how thoroughly enjoyed getting down and dirty with the love of his life, and how truly awesome he thought it was EVERY single time? Is this furthering the plot and I'm just missing it? Isn't it enough to just tell me how much they loved each other? A lot of authors describe a true love without making their books a soft core porn. Just sayin'.

[Cecily]

Andy, are you suggesting that removing, for example, the N word from Twain, is a price worth paying for allowing it to be read? (I believe there are already paper versions like that, but I just don't see the point. The book is of its time, makes powerful points, and is easy to avoid if you can't stomach it.)

[Eric]

I think the simplest way to deal with this problem would be to not read the book. Or just skip that part that you find objectionable. I have a feeling that even if such an e-reader did exist it would mangle things to the point of not being able to read making it worthless. i refer you to point 1. I would not want anyone else deciding what's acceptable for me to read... I can decide for myself. Just my 2 cents.

[stormhawk]

There was a company that got sued for copyright infringment (and lost) for doing that to movies.

Authors use the words they use for their reasons. If you don't want to read those kinds of words, don't read those kinds of books. Stick to 'clean' fiction. There are plenty of publishers that specialize in that type of matter.

[Paul]

This raises an interesting issue. I'm considering buying a Kindle for my daughter, and some sort of parental control would probably be a good idea (until she's at least a teenager).

Saying stick to "clean" fiction doesn't really help. For example there are lots of words which are socially acceptable in the US but NOT the UK, and probably vice versa. We often see US kids shows which use words which are inapropriate for young kids (Retard, fanny etc.). I've had people from the US complain about my use of the word snigger (=a type of laugh) and tell me I should use the name of a chocolate bar instead!

Some sort of filtering option (with user controls on which words) would be an excellent idea.

[Cecily]

I don't know how old your daughter is, but frankly, I'd be more concerned about what she might come across on the internet (laptop or phone), even with parental controls, than what she's likely to read in the body of a longer book.

[Al "Tank"]

Some publishers will rate their books (like the movies do), so you can avoid the "intense" or "objectionable" stuff. Of course, what you find objectionable, may not phase the next person who's hot buttons are some other thing.

For instance, you may find the word "b*tch" objectionable, while the dog breeder standing next to you wouldn't (other than an insult to his female dogs if used for a querulous woman in a book).

So, even "ratings" don't always catch what may bother you. And I doubt if anyone could develop a "filter" that would completely satisfy every reader right off the bat. One that "learns" based on reader input, might.

Best you can do when shopping online (say, Amazon) is to take advantage of the ability to "browse" the first X% of the book to see if it might be something you consider "safe".

[Clay]

Good Discussion.

I think it would be a good idea if some reader software COULD give the reader the option of filtering specific words. I don't think it would take too much. That kind of filtering is available in discussion forums (ie phpBB and SMF)and can be tailored to the individual.

I see this as putting more power in the hands of the consumer.

I personally use Moon+ Pro as my reader...and I can see how something like a filtering option could be added. It would probably slow down reading and require a bit more processing, but I think it could be done.

The question would be legality. I would be interested in watching how that would play out. I think it would probably come down on the consumer side, since the software is NOT changing the actually content, but only filtering what is actually displayed.

[Grace]

My family tried to buy a DVD player once that would filter out bad language, but it ended up cutting out stuff like 'tennis court' and 'vase' (I'm not sure with what reasoning) while all swear words were left in. It was pretty funny, but I've been leery of anti-swear software ever since--it's hard to know exactly what words it's filtering out.

[T. K. Elliott (Tiffany)]

Yes - there's an urban legend about a company that had the same sort of thing for its email system. They scheduled a training event in Scunthorpe and nobody turned up...

I've run afoul of similar systems in reality - a perfectly normal, professional email doesn't get delivered because the filtering system refuses it. It's very difficult to program a profanity-filtering engine without cutting out a lot of words that are used in ordinary language. Either that, or whoever writes these programs just likes annoying people. Could be either, I suppose!

[Ken]

Greg wrote: "I'm opposed to filtering in general except self-filtering. If you don't like reading swear words read authors who don't swear. It's that simple.

The potential for misuse is extreme. For example le..."

I agree. I'm against censorship. If you're not comfortable reading that stuff, then don't.

[Will]

There was/is an app called "clean reader" which did/does this.

I'm hesitating between the past and present tense because I don't know if it still exists. The company behind it ran into a storm of protest about a year ago when a group of authors complained about it being censorship.

The company's facebook page is a tad confusing:

https://www.facebook.com/CleanReader/...

This suggests that they are still around but it doesn't look as if they are marketing their app very heavily. But it does seem to be available for both android and apple. Google "clean reader app" and you'll find it. I've never tried it so I can't recommend it or advise you against it. Caveat emptor.

The people complaining about censorship are missing the point. This isn't censorship. The app doesn't change the book. What it does is to filter a version of the book that an individual reader has already bought. That's the reader's choice. Once a reader has bought a book they can read it in any way they want.

If you don't want censorship, then don't buy this app. But please respect the rights of others to buy the app if they want to.

[Micah]

Will wrote: "The people complaining about censorship are missing the point. This isn't censorship. The app doesn't change the book. What it does is to filter a version of the book that an individual reader has already bought. That's the reader's choice. Once a reader has bought a book they can read it in any way they want..."

Actually the strongest complaints against CleanReader by authors and publishers weren't based on censorship, but rather on illegally altering the content of a copyrighted work. When you buy a book you do not buy the rights to alter its content.

See formerly CleanReader was actually selling altered copies of books through the Inktera bookstore system. But authors and distributing channels like Smashwords objected to the altered copies. It would basically be like selling copies of a pop song with the bass drum replaced with a different sound. It's simply not legal to do that...not that it's been tested in court yet.

Here's an article about what happened:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...

"The Society of Authors said it was concerned “that the app contradicts two aspects of the author’s moral rights, namely the right of integrity and the right of false attribution”, with the former “the right of an author to object to ‘derogatory’ treatment of a work”, and the latter “the right not to have a work falsely attributed to you as author”.

The incredibly thing I don't understand, though, is what difference it makes? When you look at a book in the app you can tell what words were altered, and from the new one instantly know what was taken out. Your mind will fill it in anyway, but then I suppose you can tell yourself that you've been spared actually looking at the bad word you're so afraid of.

George Carlin addressed this back in the early 1970s: "You can't fool me. "Shoot" is "shit" with two o's.

[Micah]

Also ... how does anyone this sensitive about "bad" words ever watch television or movies? How do they function in public or at work? **scratches head**

[Will]

I'll try to make this as simple as I can. There are people out there with a different viewpoint to you. In fact, the majority of the world has a different point of view to you on at least some things. You can either respect their opinions or you can try to impose your own on them.

Some people do not like to read offensive language. That's their choice. They have as much right to that point of view as you have to yours.

The CleanReader app does not change the content of the books. All that it does - for the users of the app only - is to change how some of the words are presented to the reader. Anyone else reading the book is entirely unaffected.

It ought to be a win-win. The author sells another book. Most of the readers of that book read it exactly as the author intended. The people who want to use the CleanReader app read a version that works for them. Everyone ought to be happy.

This argument about illegally changing the content of copyright work is utterly specious. The app is a filter. It doesn't change anything permanently. It is not that far removed from someone buying a CD and choosing to skip a track they don't like. Or turning the volume up or down. Once a consumer has bought a work - whether it is written or music or video - that consumer has a right to consume that material how they want. Make notes in your books. Highlight passages that you think are important.

So why not live and let live, eh? Allow someone else to have a different point of view to you. It is not going to affect you in the slightest and it might help someone else.

How does anyone that sensitive ever watch television or movies? That's why we have age ratings. To allow people to make an informed choice.

How do "these people" function in public or at work? That's easy. I would hope that their co-workers would have some respect for their opinion.

[Micah]

Will wrote: "I'll try to make this as simple as I can. There are people out there with a different viewpoint to you. In fact, the majority of the world has a different point of view to you on at least some things..."

I agree to that point. My opinions are quite often at odds with the majority of the world out there. However, on the objection to strong language front, I have the feeling that only a small, albeit vocal, minority really want to clean the world up. Otherwise what's put on TV and in movies these days would already be squeaky clean. Those mediums are hyper sensitive to what sells; if it doesn't sell, it's unlikely to be made.

I also agree that people have the right to want to read books without bad words in them. That's not the problem really, and I'm not stopping them. But the onerous is not on authors to provide them acceptable content. It's up to the squeamish reader to read the kind of books that don't upset them. If you have to change a book to enjoy it, I don't see the point of going to the trouble of using a product like this. Filtered and altered it really isn't the same work. Words exist for a reason so why be afraid of them?

One quick aside: I agree that often curse words are way overused. That's one reason I don't watch Tarantino films. He overuses the f-bomb to an obnoxious amount, not to mention his fetishizing ultra-violence. But it's not the words or the violence and gore that turn me off, but rather the way he uses them for nothing more than gonzo shock value. It deadens the work. So, knowing that, I simply opt not to watch them. I would never consider watching them through an app that altered those words or cleaned up the gore.

As for the app altering content, Clean Reader exists now in a kind of gray area because it has never been challenged legally. But originally they were selling cleaned up copies of ebooks, and they stopped that when there was a pushback. Just read the article linked above or look up the kerfuffle. Now, the app alters the text for only the user of the app. But I still say it's not fooling anyone. We all know what words are in the original even if the text now says "darn."

[Will]

But if this app helps someone and doesn't hurt you or anyone else, why should you have any right to stop them from using it? The app isn't trying to clean the world up. It doesn't stop anyone from reading the book in its original state. It is simply trying to help its users have a better reading experience.

I don't mind swearing in the least - as long as the person hearing it is prepared for it and happy to hear it. Personally. I am a fan of most of Tarantino's films. For me, Pulp Fiction was one of the best films ever made. But you know what you are getting. In the UK it has an 18 certificate. IMDB will tell you what to expect in terms of language, nudity and violence. You can make an informed choice.

While I don't mind cussing, I know that there a people out there who don't like to hear swearing. Some of my friends and family members, for example.

Writers need to recognise that they lose a lot of control of a work when they release it to the public. It stops being the writer's book and becomes the reader's book. With a few exceptions, the reader can do what they want with it. Underline passages. Scribble all over it. Skip bits they don't like.

I love the White Album, but I cannot stand Revolution number 9. It's a little bit too avant garde for me. So whenever I'm listening to the White Album I nearly always hit the skip button when I get to that track.

Is Sir Paul McCartney going to bang on my door for daring to change his composition? Am I going to be challenged by some self-important band of artists demanding that I listen to it exactly as the Beatles intended? Am I illegally changing copyrighted material?

Of course not. Once I've bought a CD or book or DVD it is entirely up to me how I use it.

As to the app "not fooling anyone" what has that got to do with anything? The people who buy this app know that swearing exists. They know most of the swear words. They just don't want to hear them again, thank you very much.

If you can't understand that, then you will have to take it on trust. As usual, it comes down to respect - the ability to respect someone else's opinion even if you don't share it.

[E.D.]

Poop poop poopy poop.

Grow up.

[Tobias]

All right, this thread has been popping up in my notifications for a while, but I didn't want to intrude on the civil discussion by asking why people would want to filter the language of books. I feel that I can now, though.

Although of course you can consume a book/CD/DVD however you please, in my view, I would never fathom to experience any of them any differently from what the author/artist/director wanted the first time I experienced them (the lack of a director's cut notwithstanding, since movies often lack that upon release). That's how the comparison to skipping tracks on a CD doesn't hold up for me. Sure, I skip some tracks on an album sometimes, but I didn't do it the first time I listened to the album. I listened to it from start to finish, taking in the artist's vision. Upon re-hearing an album, I might have developed preferences about it and adapt my experience from that. In the same way, if I re-read a book, I might read an abridged version (in theory; I rarely do, although I have once or twice for really long books like Moby-Dick). But the first time? No.

[Will]

Okay, that's your point of view. You are aware that there are other points of view out there apart from yours?

Here's the thing. You and I each have set of beliefs. We will each of us decided where we stand on questions of morality, religion, blasphemy, violence, ethics. In all likelihood, we won't agree on each of the beliefs that we have developed over the course of our lives. But tolerance and respect means that we will allow each other the right to follow our own beliefs.

You place a great deal of emphasis on reading something as the author first intended. That's fine and dandy. It's your choice. Other people have decided that they don't want to read swearing. That's their choice too.

Who are you to say that your choice is more valid than theirs?

So you only read books as the author intended, eh? So I guess you've read the Iliad in ancient Greek, the Aenid in Latin, Beowulf in Old English and Don Quixote in Spanish?

Stephen King has published two version of The Stand. The first version was much shortened by his editor and publisher. The second version is the unabridged version which is what he actually wanted to publish. Surely you are not saying that in your world people can only read the unabridged version?

What is happening here is that you have made a choice about how you like to read and you expect everyone in the world to make exactly the same choice.

[Tobias]

Will wrote: "Okay, that's your point of view. You are aware that there are other points of view out there apart from yours?"

Of course. Perhaps I was not clear: I'm wondering what the reason for not wanting to read swear words might be, while also explaining my own stance. I did not intend that my view was the objective correct way to do things. I'm merely curious.

Will wrote: "You place a great deal of emphasis on reading something as the author first intended. That's fine and dandy. It's your choice. Other people have decided that they don't want to read swearing. That's their choice too."

Indeed, but what is the choice rooted in? What made them choose that? Where does that morality come from? You mentioned religion, but as far as I know Christianity says you shouldn't swear yourself, but not that you shouldn't read swear words. Do swear words make people uncomfortable? If so, why?

Will wrote: "So you only read books as the author intended, eh? So I guess you've read the Iliad in ancient Greek, the Aenid in Latin, Beowulf in Old English and Don Quixote in Spanish?"

No, I haven't read any of them. Yes, I very rarely read translated works. That's the corollary to what I said in my previous comment. I'm sure it has happened, but I don't like it when things are lost in translation either.

Will wrote: "Stephen King has published two version of The Stand. The first version was much shortened by his editor and publisher. The second version is the unabridged version which is what he actually wanted to publish. Surely you are not saying that in your world people can only read the unabridged version?"

No, in my world people can do whatever they like. I just wonder what their motivations and reasons are for liking what they do.

Will wrote: "What is happening here is that you have made a choice about how you like to read and you expect everyone in the world to make exactly the same choice."

Not at all:

Tobias wrote: "Although of course you can consume a book/CD/DVD however you please"

[Will]

I don't fully know why swear words make people uncomfortable. I am not religious, so I don't understand how people interpret their religion into their everyday lives.

But what I do know is this - some people find swear words offensive and don't want to read them. And frankly that's all we need to know. We don't need to know their motivations and reasons. What would we gain from knowing their motivations - so that we could argue with them and try to get them to see the errors of their ways?

My wife is afraid of spiders. There is no point in me trying to understand why or trying to reason with her that she shouldn't be afraid. All I know is that I have to respect other people's opinions even if I don't have those same opinions myself.

Let's imagine a scenario. You've invited a group of friends to your house for a meal. Your plan was to cook roast beef with all the trimmings.

That's when you run into problems. One of your guests is a vegetarian. Do you:

(a) interrogate your friend to demand to know his motivations for being a vegetarian? Maybe with the intention of persuading him to change his mind? Oh, go on, just this once.

(b) tell your friend that he isn't invited any more.

(c) serve nut cutlets on the side?

[E.D.]

I'm blaming an overbearing potty-trainer. Nothing else could leave such deep wounds.