Comments: 11
BrokenTune 3 years ago
Are we to laugh or cry?? I'm gonna go with laugh.
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
Normally I would, but the shear amount of people in the comments spouting the same nonsense in the comments (and more) makes me not want to.
Spare Ammo 3 years ago
I love how she's "moving on", she does that quite a lot or tells a perfectly calm poster they are hysterical and there is no point in her responding to them.
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
But of course. It's far easier to shut down a conversation than have it.
Chris' Fish Place 3 years ago
I swear I don't understand Anne Rice at all. The way I see the whole thing is this - the stupid racist twat who wrote the racist and misygonist piece of shit has a right to write and sell it. Of course, we have the right to call it racist shit and blog, scream, shout or whatnot. We also have the right to boycott it and self-censor. We all, even Anne Rice, self-censor. I refuse to go see Tom Cruise movies any more, I refuse to buy the racist crap (and it is racist badly written crap if the preview is anything to go by). Boycotting is as much a right to free speech as anything else. I know people who boycott the NFL because of the domestic abuse issues. The 1st Amendment protects you (and us) from governmental censorship or, in some cases, of not losing our job because of it. It does not protect anyone from a bad review or a boycott. I really wish people who always scream free speech actually read the mound of material about it.

And I'm not sorry for swearing. I'm calling like I see it.
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
No need to apologise for your language!

Boycotting is definitely another form of free speech. We have the right to decide where we spend our money and on what. It's a big thing in the UK, no shopping on Amazon due to their tax dodging habits - I'm sure some people would call it bullying.

I will assume that anybody who screeches 'Free Speech' about this kind of thing has no objection with AmazonUK not selling it, or any of the other sites serving countries which have no free speech laws?
Chris' Fish Place 3 years ago
Who know? Technically, Amazon can legally refuse to sell it here in the US. A few years back, some game company tried to sell a game called Rapelay on the West Coast. It was Japanese game, and the company was trying to import it. The one store that was going to sell it, basically changed its mind after one day of protests.

I'll grant you, here in the US the right to freedom of speech is also blurred with the idea of right from speech, and it is interesting where the line is. But that isn't what Rice is blathering on about.

Christ, there are better free speech issues. Like the rights of the business owner vs. the rights of public (so can an owner refuse to do a cake for a gay couple) or hate speech.
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
Heh. No worries on the swearing: I have a mouth like a sailor sometimes.

The big thing they miss is that there are a lot of books Amazon won't sell. They won't sell incest erotica, for instance. Is that banning? Is that censorship? Or is that a private business deciding what it wants to make available?
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
The thing is though, it's not trying to ban the book. It's not trying to censor the book. They're asking the retailers not to stock it due to the objectionable premise. There are lots of things Amazon doesn't stock - is their lack of pseudo-incest titles censorship?

I also disagree with you that it's a personal view, I think it's very much an objective view. This book is based on real historical figures (it's worth noting I'm talking about the premise rather than what's in the book because what's in the book is rather muddled), Thomas Jefferson and the woman he owned, Sally Hemmings. A woman who, because she was a slave, was not able to give consent to having sex with her owner. I struggle with the idea that documented rape can ever be an acceptable subject to rewrite as erotic fiction, whatever changes one makes to the particulars of the characters. Hemmings was not a MILF and slavery isn't some cute quirk from history we've learned not to do any more.

I've said it in other comments, what if this were Josef Fritz and his 'mistress'? Or Ariel Castro and his werewolf hareem? How about Roman Polanski?

And yes, I would stand beside those who ban anything they please to ban from their privately owned businesses. If a library doesn't wish to stock it, or a book shop, that's up to them. I support their right to make an active choice about what they do and do not sell. ETA: As long as they comply with equality legislation etc
Dor Does Books 3 years ago
I've been giving this some thought. You make an interesting point about judging things as being objectionable when they are from another culture. Obviously there is no one-size-fits-all about any situation and I think these things should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In this instance, we are not the slave owner. This is not historical fiction, nor does it seek to be. Hemmings is treated as fodder for (what claims to be) a BDSM tale, created as a MILF because she was impregnated by her owner. In reality she was a person without a voice. One of nameless thousands you and I will never hear about because their stories were never important enough to record. She was an object. She did not have a choice. There's already enough 'but it's correct for the style of the time' nonsense banded around to justify things (such as a lack of female characters in Fantasy Fiction) and I think we have a responsibility to recognise that such thinking compounds existing problems in the modern world eg lack of diversity in fiction, whitewashing of covers etc.

There are plenty of examples of things which have been 'censored' in the interests of modern taste and I'm interested to know if you think they shouldn't have been. Things like Agatha Christie's 'And Then There Were None' - should it still be published under it's original title '10 Little N*****s'? There's nothing to stop it retaining that title and the original rhyme, but it's going to surprise nobody if Waterstones refuse to stock it. How is this situation different?