Banned Books discussion
BANNED/CHALLENGED
>
I wrote a book on a lark and it's been banned...
date
newest »
newest »
Twilight???????? Really I don't know, but that sucks...
I totally understand why they would be freaked out but, really, it took me 3 minutes to find :) I would imagine that anyone with half a brain and an internet connection could probably put it together.But, I'm of the camp that people that want to ban books don't have half a brain, so maybe they wouldn't be able to figure it out ;)
I wouldn't have thought that there were 16 people in the English speaking world who hadn't ever heard or told a dead baby joke, but judging by the nane comments I am clearly wrong.
Well there were definitely a few negative reviews there but seriously I think those people need to get down off their high horses a little and look at themselves rather than judging the sense of humour of others.Wonder what else they would like to ban, Free Speech maybe, or how about Freedom of Choice?
Don't worry about 'em Stephen, I must admit I laughed when I read the title never mind the book (which by the way is now on my wish list...ooooo I'm going to Hell according to those Amazon reviews!)
Sixteen people are that upset about dead baby jokes? Really? Aren't dead baby jokes from the '80s? Is it one sock puppet who is a relative who really doesn't like you, Stephen, or a religious cult that thinks a joke book is going to hell?
Stephen wrote: "I don't know... I get a lot of threats from the UK. Their used to censorship over there I guess."I don't know about that Stephen, I've found that there seems to be a lot of books that have been and are banned in the US that aren't over here. I don't think the UK is any worse than the US for censorship, or any other country for that matter.
And I checked the page for your book on Amazon's UK site and there's not a single comment (although that could be because it's not been found yet).
Or people who think they're being all cool and stuff by using Brit slang.
dead baby jokes? wow, that sure sounds edgy and hilarious
First off, I question whether your book ("TUDBJB")really qualifies as "Banned". I don't see where any civil, political,academic, religious or military authority has restricted it's publication, distribution or sale. Smashwords, I-tunes, and Sony Nook are all privately owned commercial businesses that are free to carry, promote, and sell (or not) whatever products they think will generate revenue for their owners and stockholders. These companies also have a responsibility to these owners to be cognizant of public opinion and foster positive relations with the public to avoid economic reprecussions. The negative feedback seems to be grass roots movement. So, I don't think you've been "banned", but just been declared "unworthy" by their standards - either as a literary judgement or as a business risk.You used to own a comic book store, correct? Were you required to sell romance novels or the complete works of Shakespeare? I would guess no - because you thought those works did not conform to your standards for inclusion in your product line. You own a horror film production company now. If Nicholas Sparks walked in off the street, would you be required to bring his latest lovestory to the screen. No. But, you might consider it if you research how much money those movies actually make. Bottom line is that you, just like Sony and I-tunes, make business decisions based on profit potential.
Second, you seem to think that you are being persecuted because you wrote a tasteless book (even you were ashamed to name it at the begining of this discussion). You are far from the first - especially in the humor or satire format. We can trace that back to ancient Greece. In English literature, Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal is regularly taught in schools - and, occasionally, banned by a school board. But, it's value as political satire and social commentary continue to sustain it's "worthiness" for inclusion in the classroom. There's also an early 18th century English woman author, Jane Collier ???, who wrote a guide to "tormenting" relatives, friends, servants, etc - which also continues to be valued for it's insights into Georgian society.
Outside of academic value, Simon Bond's 1981 book, 101 Uses For A Dead Cat, spent 27 weeks on the New York Times Bestseller List; sold millions of copies in 20 countries; and begat two sequals. If my math is right, that's 303 uses for a dead cat. There was even a special 25th anniversary edition of the first Dead Cat published in 2006. A major factor in Bond's success was that he was already a well known cartoonist before this book came out and had a well document extreme allergy to cats.
Gallows humor (and schadenfreude) is, despite it's name, alive and well in American literature. I think it feeds on the corpses of other literary genres as they write themselves to death or are, more likely, killed by the bored reading public.
I see your particular case like the college frat pledge who ran naked across campus as a prank (or, as you called it, "a lark"). It was all fun and games until he turned that last corner and ran straight into a half dozen nuns and 50 elementary school student's from St. Mary's School for Girls. Now, you're A) on the sex offenders list for life; B) having to explain the court-ordered GPS ankle bracelet to Grandma at Thanksgiving; and C)unsuccessfully using "it was a lark" in many conversations with potential dates.
By the way, you may want to track down Bond's books to make sure that you have "adapted" any of his dead cat uses for TUDBJB. I sounds like this thing is burden enough with the potential scarlett P of plagiarism added in.
Good luck with your future literary endeavors. Lesson learned cats okay, babies not so much. You better hope Nancy Grace never hears about TUDBJB, she would be distributing pitchfolks and torches.
I think I find the fact that one man can independently come up with enough of these jokes to fill a book to be more disturbing than the book itself. Though once again, it's a free speech issue.
Stephen wrote: "Yeah... on the facebook page, most of the threats are from people in the UK. Can usually tell by the wanker and slag names their calling me. LOL"Oh please don't tar all us Brits with the same brush as Facewhore Brits!!! That would be just too unbearable for words!!!
And I've got to be honest the only ones over here that tend to use wanker and slag are those who favour the Burberry scarf and the tucking their trackie bottoms into their trainers look (chavs we call them, not sure what they get called over there) so their repertoire is generally quite limited (to put it nicely).
Stephen wrote: "LOL... Okay I won't. LOL Had to read your post several times and still don't know what a Burberry scarf is. LOL"It's a scarf with a biege tartan type pattern, google it and you'll see what I mean. It tends to be very favoured by chavs, I know not why!!!
i keep getting updates about this thread, and reading it again, i gotta say, as William eloquently explained upthread, it doesn't sound like this book has been "banned" in any meaningful way at all. three retailers have decided not to provide you a platform for it, that's all. that's not the same thing. i made an album once. it's not stocked by HMV or Barnes & Noble or whoever, but that doesn't make it "banned". if i were more cynical than i am, i'd suggest that you're just hyping up its "banned"-ness to promote the book and let us know how "edgy" you are.
Stephen wrote: "Yeah... on the facebook page, most of the threats are from people in the UK. Can usually tell by the wanker and slag names their calling me. LOL"Its probably because Dead Baby Jokes weren't the same sort of thing they were in the US.
Tim Minchin has a great dead baby joke song ;) but seriously it's a joke.... whats the big deal?
Kieron wrote: "Tim Minchin has a great dead baby joke song ;) but seriously it's a joke.... whats the big deal?"But, you don't see Minichin going out of his way to sing that song to a bereaved parent like say, Eric Clapton.
My point is that there are times, places and audiences where tasteless humour is psuedo-acceptable or tolerated. Taste is an individual judgement call. As humour evolves (devolves?), comedians find themselves having to reach farther and farther into "sacred" topics to upstage their predecessors and rise(?) above their competition. It's the times we live in.
I agree that Stephen should be allowed to write whatever he wants to, shy of libel. But, I don't see that as the issue here. The book is not banned, it simply has not been picked up for distribution by privately or corporately owned companies. The suggestion has been made that he may be exploiting this "ban" as a marketing gimmick for it and his most recent book. Truly "banned" authors are an exclusive club.
If retailers were "required" to sell it, isn't that just one step away from "requiring" everyone to read it. "Required reading" is the exact opposite of being "banned", but may be equally damaging - particularly in an oppressive society. The posters who are opposed to the book are free to pan it and are not "required" to buy it or read it
In the days before desktop publishing, many authors spent years collecting rejection letters from publishers. John Kennedy Toole's Confederacy of Dunces didn't find a publisher before he committed suicide, then his mother spent years marketing it. The story goes that J.K. Rowling also struggled to find a publisher. Historically Galileo and Copernicus also had difficulty. These latter two were "banned", the former two simply "rejected".
You can write whatever you want, but don't bitch about the negative feedback and reprecussions on future writings. The book is his albatross. Most authors play down their less successful or embarassing earlier works. Stephen, on the other hand, has decided to flaunt it.
With that being said, while it isn't my thing personally it looks like there is small niche market that this book fits into. I'm a believer that just about every book has a home somewhere.