Monday, December 13, 2010

Guest Post by Selena Kitt

Like many others, I've been keenly watching Amazon.com, and their current efforts to delist ebooks dealing with certain taboo topics. It seems as if Amazon is taking down ebooks and print books that focus on incest erotica.

Though I have no skin in this game (unless I ever revisit my long-delayed project My Hard-On Belongs To Daddy) I am a bit concerned. As a company, Amazon has every right to choose what it sells and doesn't sell. In my opinion, this isn't a censorship or freedom of speech issue. It's a retail issue.

That said, because Amazon isn't being specific about what they consider inappropriate, this could easily turn into a slippery slope.

Since I'm not affected by this, I asked one of the authors who is affected, Selena Kitt, if she'd like to chime in. Selena wrote this essay (also posted at The Self Publishing Review) and kindly let me repost it.

I look forward to the heated debate in the comments section.

Amazon in the Book Banning Business
by Selena Kitt

On December 9, 2010, I was contacted by CreateSpace (Amazon’s Print on Demand service) who publishes my print books. They informed me that my title, Back to the Garden, had been removed for violating their “content guidelines.” When I consulted their guidelines I found them so vague as to be useless—were they saying my content was illegal? Public domain? Stolen? Offensive? (All of these were on the list). When I inquired as to the specifics of the violation, they were not forthcoming, and sent a form letter response stating that Amazon “may, in its sole discretion, at any time, refuse to list or distribute any content that it deems inappropriate.”

On Sunday, December 12, the print title that had been removed had now disappeared from the Kindle store, as well as two of my other titles, Naughty Bits and Under Mr. Nolan’s Bed. I have over fifty titles selling on Amazon, all of them in erotic fiction categories. The only thing these three singled-out titles had in common, besides being written by me—they were all erotic incest fantasy fiction.

About this time, I heard that two other authors, Jess C. Scott and Esmerelda Green, both had erotic incest-related titles removed from Amazon's site. After some research, I discovered one of Frances Gaines Bennett’s incest-related books had also been removed. As the night wore on, and public outcry about censorship and banned books began on Twitter at #amazonfail and #amazoncensors and on their own Kindle Boards, more and more incest-related erotica titles began to disappear from the Amazon site, so that the “Kindle Incest” search page began to look like swiss cheese. Teleread covered the story soon after.

When some of my readers began checking their Kindle archives for books of mine they’d purchased on Amazon, they found them missing from their archives. When one reader called to get a refund for the book she no longer had access to, she was chastised by the Amazon customer service representative about the “severity” of the book she’d chosen to purchase.

As of this writing, Amazon has refused to respond to my emails or phone calls in regards to this matter and has refused to further clarify what, if any, content guidelines the books in question violate. If Amazon had clear guidelines that were applied to all publishers across every platform and enforced them consistently, this would be a moot issue. By not clearly stating their position and choosing books either arbitrarily or based on searches of top-rated titles which are the most visible titles in the genre, they seem to be deliberately hiding a clear case of discrimination and what amounts to censorship (albeit ipso facto) because of their lack of transparency.

I want to be clear that while the subject of incest may not appeal to some, there is no underage contact in any of my work, and I make that either explicitly clear in all my stories or I state it up front in the book's disclaimer. I don't condone or support actual incest, just as someone who writes mysteries about serial killers wouldn't condone killing. What I write is fiction. It's fantasy, not reality. And I'm not saying what I write isn't controversial, but it's not illegal (at least in some states) or a threat to national security, and seems as undeserving of censorship as... well...

As fellow author, Will Belegon, noted, if Amazon is going to start pulling books with incest in them: "I just re-read Genesis 19: 30-38 and realized that Lot's daughters got him drunk, had sex with him and bore sons. I demand you follow your clear precedent and remove The Bible from Kindle."

Or perhaps Amazon should create a new television ad after they follow their clear precedent and ban the book the woman is reading in the advertisement on her Kindle ("Sleepwalking" by Amy Bloom) which tells the story of a 19-year-old boy who has a sexual encounter with his stepmother, which, in some states, is legally incest.

While it can be said that, for an author or celebrity, any press (including bad press) is good press, for a bookseller and publisher, that does not necessarily hold true. Can Amazon afford the bad press about book removal which may spark outcries from many corners, including self-publishing authors, the fastest-growing segment of their Kindle ebook distribution?

In speculating on the motivations of Amazon’s actions, as they have not been forthcoming with any statement or explanation, I am concerned that they may be acting out of reactionary fear. This may be based on pressure from a small number of vocal and complaining conservative and/or religious right extremists who object to and are afraid of sexual fantasies and erotic printed material (including incest fantasies). It may also be based on threatening governmental pressure related to the recently removed WikiLeaks. More speculation may point to overzealous lawyering as Amazon moves from just-distributor and bookseller to publisher.

While I am not a lawyer, constitutional scholar or legal expert on free speech and intellectual freedom, I am an author and publisher and know that, regardless of the technical legalities of Amazon's actions, buckling to this pressure and the removal of books will hurt their bottom line. It will damage relationships with readers, authors, publishers and organizations such as the American Library Association and the ACLU, among others, who are interested in supporting free speech. I should also note that I am a professional psychologist and, while no longer licensed or working in the field, it’s clear that when individuals and organizations fail to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, problems such as this result.

300 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 300 of 300
Anonymous said...

I don't read JA's blog too much any more because of all the anger and name calling. Signing back out, now. Good luck to all of you.

Tara Maya said...

Jt:

Nice attitude.

So if someone doesn't think like you, that's offensive?


You missed my entire point.

While indeed there are thousands of books with ideas I find disgusting, dangerous, abhorrent, stupid or just plain wrong, I do not wish any of them banned or censored.

Because the price to pay for banning them would be too high. If I want to live in a tolerant society, and I do, I have to be tolerant myself.

The only thing that a tolerant society can never, MUST NEVER tolerate is intolerance itself. This is difficult for a lot of people to grasp, for some reason.

And yes, it is a nice attitude. It was this attitude and this philosophy, that allowed for the existence of democracy, civil rights and all the things I value about the world I live in. I can be friends with anyone across the political spectrum as long as they have this attitude -- tolerance for nonconformity and disagreement but no tolerance for intimidating others into conformity.

Tara Maya
Conmergence: An Anthology of Speculative Ficiton

Mark said...

"You answered your own question. Amazon responded to people making a fuss demanding censorship. So unless we make a fuss and demand an end to censorship, they are going to assume people are more upset if the don't censor than if they do."

Unfortunately, it's going to be hard to rally the troops to come to the defense of incest books.

The question Amazon faces is if more people will be offended by them selling books about incest or if more people will be offended by them refusing to sell books about incest.

The more publicity this gets, the more people will come out in defense of Amazon. This one is unwinnable.

jtplayer said...

Not digging incest erotica is hardly a case of being closed minded.

It's not my style to complain about such things, but I certainly do not begrudge those who choose to.

Likewise, if you're gonna be open minded and tolerant, then you'll not judge the ones who find this stuff offensive and in turn complain to Amazon, regardless of the consequences.

JA Konrath said...

Selena can print up as many copies as she wants and go sell them on the street corner.

And you can do the same with your opinions.

But it's much more convenient, and you get a lot more reactions, when you post your opinions here.

We can all do things elsewhere. That's not the point.

The point is, if I suddenly kicked you or someone else off this blog, it really wouldn't be fair, and you could be justifiably annoyed at me for doing it. Especially since I've said, repeatedly, that I welcome those who disagree with me.

It's my blog, and I can do what I want. But if I suddenly began deleting every post I disagreed with, it could very well be construed as a Bad Thing.

JA Konrath said...

I don't read JA's blog too much any more because of all the anger and name calling.

Don't take is personally. And, honestly, the more heated the discussion, the more interesting is winds up being.

Besides, if things get too mean I get my stick out and start whacking folks. Or disallowing anonymous posts.

Amazing how civil people become when they're forced to sign in using their name.

jtplayer said...

The thing is Joe, I have no expectations whatsoever when it comes to participating on your blog, or any other message board/blog/discussion on the interwebs.

I take it for granted that the administrators may act in an arbitrary manner, based on whatever agenda they may have.

This is all voluntary anyway, so if you kicked me off, oh well, what's there to be pissed about?

So your comparison to the Amazon situation is inaccurate, IMO.

And yes, the point is we all have the opportunity to take our work elsewhere. There can be no true censorship as long as viable, legal avenues exist.

Just ‘cause Amazon doesn’t want it anymore means nothing more or less than exactly that, they don’t want to sell it.

Selena Kitt said...

"I wonder how different the world would be if people were as quick to tolerate one another as they are to judge one another."

------

Amen, Brother Joe! ;)

dr.cpe said...

@jt player
JT, I think it is important to discuss these matters... traditionally in censorship activism, it isnt the content that is foreground, it is the censoring that is foreground.

This is an entirely new generation of writers who are just now forming ranks in new ebk world. They are developing their ideas, bulwarks and front lines (no pun intended) . I believe they must do so; the conversation and debate here, is not 'hot air'... it is, in my opinion, needed for their future in having fair trading ground without behemoth monopolies AGAIN being the gatekeepers, locking out many, only letting in certain others. We've all been through that for decades now with the big pubs.

Those who push others out from publishing --and Amz is not just a 'bkseller' but also a publisher.-- have broken rank with the tradition for generations re pubs and bksellers pushing back against cherry-picking censorship.

This is a serious break that new/young/old writers have to mass together about and PUSH back against.

The new group of writers, many evidenced here, is gearing up, I think, to push back. Will eventually form their own coalition. Watch for it. It is needed. And overdue.

@Mark
just this... Rosa Parks not giving up her seat on the bus was not the event that 'sparked the civil rights movement.' Such a pop media view of the civil rights movement -- and it has been put forth by some that way exactly-- erases those who pled for, marched for, and died for the movement years and years before Miss Parks, and long after. I noted you mentioned you are old enough to remember. I am not only old enough. I was present. It was a peace movement Mark, very unlike harsh words here aimed at people who in no way deserved them. Just my .02

Anonymous said...

Update on the original thread posting over @ Amazon:

Amazon Kindle Customer Service (AMAZON OFFICIAL) says:
Due to a technical issue, for a short window of time three books were temporarily unavailable for re-download by customers who had previously purchased them. When this was brought to our attention, we fixed the problem and those books were once again made available for re-download. We apologize for the inconvenience.

My Reply:
@ Amazon Kindle Customer Service: Thank you for the reply. I have one question: what are the titles of these three books?

Some of the ones mentioned on this thread were:

1) Wicked Lovely (Jess C Scott)
2) Under Mr. Nolan’s Bed (Selena Kitt)
3) Mindy’s Family (Esmeralda Green)

Did these books experience a technical glitch too? If so, when will these books be made available again for re-download? They (and many other self-published erotica books) are not available at the Kindle store at the time of this posting.

Jess.
http://www.jesscscott.com

Link to Amazon’s Reply: http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdMsgNo=161&cdPage=7&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2QG9BWA19KO4O&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx1R06EV4B15ZFQ#Mx1R06EV4B15ZFQ

Link to my reply: http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdMsgNo=166&cdPage=7&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2QG9BWA19KO4O&displayType=tagsDetail&cdMsgID=Mx1RTECSUGA8X5R#Mx1RTECSUGA8X5R

Also posted @ http://jesscscott.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/jessink-publishing/

Jess.
www.jesscscott.com

Rebecca Stroud said...

Amazed...totally amazed. "Big Brother" and all his relatives are becoming more and more pervasive and invasive. Scares the crap out of me...

Ruth Harris said...

Carl Bernstein (of Woodward-Bernstein Watergate fame) made a comment this AM on Morning Joe that's relevant to this discussion. The subject was the video of the Florida man who shot at (but didn't hit) people in a school (IIRC) and subsequently turned the gun on himself and committed suicide.

The discussion revolved around the producer's decision about whether or not to show the clip...it was very distressing/upsetting video and they finally decided not show the suicide but did show the wild firing of the gun that preceded it.

Bernstein commented, re that decision about what to show or not show, that now that the internet exists, people can decide for themselves whether or not they want to view this particular video.

When I worked as an editor/publisher in mass market, we published a lot of romance (among other genres) and were always careful not to show "too much" cleavage. We knew that retailers (particularly in the South) would simply not display books with covers considered too revealing. It was simply a business decision and, frankly, annoying (but that's another story).

Now that the internet exists, the problem of censorship & self-censorship should be irrelevant. No one has to worry about walking into a drugstore/bookstore and being upset by seeing "too much." People can go to Amazon or any other net bookseller & decide for themselves what books they do or do not want to buy. No one else needs know, No one else needs be offended. Period.

Ruth Harris
NYTimes bestselling author of
Husbands And Lovers

dr.cpe said...

@ Rebecca

scared: first reaction. Good

next reaction: activist: Good.

radicalization is a process; the word means only this: rootstock; returning to a firm basis.

I see it happening. You too.

Selena Kitt said...

Ars Technica covered it:

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/12/amazons-latest-kindle-deletion-erotic-incest-themed-fiction.ars

The picture and caption made me laugh out loud :)

-Selena

Anonymous said...

Dr. CPE, Sir, your quote below Edmund Burke's here is why "elder" and "wisdom" are so often coupled, and should moreso be. Thank you for your vision and perspective.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke

"Just saying, if I could, as an elder, I'd like to ever see all generations be radicalized about censorship, when that silencing of author and blinding of reader has nothing to do with 'how to' manuals to teach adults to prey on children. Though by my sights, I'd discern that from the issue of adult erotica, I also grew up in a time and place where government and religion attempted to bar writings not only having to do with adult life, but about freedom to gather, freedom of movement and freedom to criticize or resist the immorality of government without being arrest or disappeared.

Just saying.

Thanks Joe for allow the forum for this issue to be broadly discussed. It's an important one that is larger than what happened in the last few days. It is true, I think, that resting in freedom, erodes that very freedom. It's important to remain vigilant, i think. Not paranoid. Awake. Have been in touch w Selena and she's a strong cookie. This is a time for all of us, I think."

Selena Kitt said...

And Business Insider covers it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-censorship-policy-is-still-incoherent-incest-themed-erotica-removed-from-kindle-store-2010-12

Tara Maya said...

dr.cpe said...
I think it is important to discuss these matters... traditionally in censorship activism, it isnt the content that is foreground, it is the censoring that is foreground.

Tara Maya said...

Sorry, my comment got sent before I added I thought that dr.cpe's explanation was well put.

Anonymous said...

Tony,

If you can't see the value and business savvy of what Selena and Joe are doing you are certainly as ignorant and reactionary as you present yourself to be.

I am certain that, during those tender post coital moments with her, your mother must have whispered manners into your ear.

I would disagree with a former poster and advise you to switch to a decaffeinated brand.

I also remember recently seeing a class action lawsuit advertised for off-label Prozac use. You might want to Google it...?

You have gotten much more feedback on this blog than you're worth, but you're just so darn cute!

--TAPWUSAL



--TAPWUSAL

Mark said...

TAPWUSAL, you seem to be an unkind person.

Anonymous said...

LOL re the Arstechnica comments:

Rom wrote:
So I guess Amazon won't be selling Julain Assange's biography when it comes out?

Aleph_Xero:
They'll actually sell it for a few hours, until Lieberman finds out and threatens to charge them with treason, then they'll drop it like a hot potato.

JA Konrath said...

I am certain that, during those tender post coital moments with her, your mother must have whispered manners into your ear.

Amusing, and relevant considering the discussing, but let's remember to be nice. My house, so I can call people assholes. "Mother fuckers" is a bit too mean, and it scares off the red states, whose money I mean to covet.

Steven Lewis said...

May I just say how nice it is that -- 222 comments in -- this is still a civilised discussion despite the range of strongly-held beliefs and the multi-cultural nature of the participants. To have attracted only one sad troll to this conversation says something.

Maybe it says how much everyone here values freedom of speech in the first place.

And back at, everyone...

Marie Simas said...

Joe, your little "tempest in the teapot" has turned out to be a little bigger than some originally expected. Since I'm a gambling woman, I suspect that this is going to get bigger before the end of the week.

So I guess Amazon won't be selling Julain Assange's biography when it comes out?

I hope they do. I'd buy it, too. I think he's hot, plus I love the fact that he's exposing government douchebaggery.

Sunlight is the best anteseptic, after all.

Selena Kitt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Selena Kitt said...

"it scares off the red states, whose money I mean to covet."

-----------

Funny, I bet I sell to more red states that you do. *grin*

Those new maps on Amazon Author Central are VERY telling! ;)

Anonymous said...

Mark, unkind to who? You seem a very discerning thinker. Do you mean I am unkind in general or that I was unkind to Tony?

I intended to be unkind to Tony, and I do believe I was not alone in doing so. I did not intend to be unkind to anyone else, and if I was, I will certainly address it if it's pointed out.

Had Tony spoken to a person in my presence as he did to Selena in his first post, demanding that she "Shut the fuck up!," I would have verbally confronted him and would be prepared to enforce my direction with physical confrontation. I don't seek out fights, but neither do I shy away or waste time when they're inevitable, especially when bullies are the instigators.

Tony's an asshole, bully and coward and I doubt he hangs out anyplace where he can be confronted face-to-face.

I'm sorry if conflict is distasteful to you, Mark, or at least this one in which I involved myself. There are sheep and there are wolves. Sheepdogs are needed.

I will confess to my analyst that I think far too much about sheep.

I hope we can continue the dialogue about banning books, cats and calamari.

TAPWUSAL

Anonymous said...

Joe,

I will be nic-er if you give me cred for not being as remotely as mean as was possible or warranted.

Seriously, I will comply in spirit and in letter. i appreciate the way you handle we rabble (we know who we are) on the whole.

But, you should know, I eat breakfast (usually cat and calamari) 300 yards from 4000 editors who are trained to kill me, so don't think for one second that you can come down here flash your badge and make me nervous. I can also see Russia from my house.

TAPWUSAL

Tara Maya said...

It's been a pretty good discussion, let's not let the one nasty troll drag it down to his level. :)

Errol said...

And lets not forget Amazon's CEO Jeff Bezos vision for the Kindle:

"Our vision is every book, ever printed in any language, all available in less than 60 seconds."

That vision will never happen.

Anonymous said...

I'm deeply disturbed by the censorship issue here. And I'd really like to know who or what prompted it. I seriously doubt Amazon's recent actions were taken without outside influence or complaint.

If Amazon can be forced to cave to outside pressure (of whatever kind), it condemns itself as being unreliable and unpredictable, to both writers and readers.

Once proven successful, the apparent [to me] tactics behind this shameful banning of books will escalate. It's human nature. Unchecked power makes a mob greedy and hungry for more.

So what's the next target? Should all novels depicting explicit sex be banned? Are horror novels too scary and violent? Is romance with its happily ever after too unrealistic? Is science fiction too... effing weird?

As others have noted, dr.cpe nailed it:

it isnt the content that is foreground, it is the censoring that is foreground.

That should be of concern to all of us who write and who read.

Tony said...

and would be prepared to enforce my direction with physical confrontation.

Well, that would've been a tough lesson for you to learn, douche bag. Good thing this is the internet so you can talk tough from the safety of your basement while wearing your wife's plus size panties.

Probably best to stick to your semi-literate posts and shut the fuck up.

Ellen Fisher said...

"I'd really like to know who or what prompted it. I seriously doubt Amazon's recent actions were taken without outside influence or complaint."

I agree, especially since B&N seems to be involved too. I'd really like to know what set this whole thing off. It seems profoundly unlikely to be just a random decision on both stores' parts.

jtplayer said...

Re: "I'm deeply disturbed by the censorship issue here"
-----------

This is not a censorship issue.

What's with the constant characterization as such?

KevinMc said...

"This is not a censorship issue.
What's with the constant characterization as such?"

When two companies representing roughly 90% of sales for a media agree to ban a book, they have effectively censored the book.

Yes, some people will still be able to find it on personal websites or smaller bookstores, but most will not. The sheer dominance of these two companies means that they can censor a book very effectively.

jtplayer said...

No Kevin, they did not censor the book, they simply stopped selling it.

Big difference there.

And as pointed out repeatedly, despite Amazon's actions, Selena or any other affected author can still sell their books elsewhere.

Just not on Amazon.

Once all avenues of commerce are blocked, and officially sanctioned by our government, then come talk to me about censorship.

Anonymous said...

@jtplayer:

Amazon (and B&N, in some authors' books cases, as of this posting) is practicing a form of censorship, if you take the following definition of 'censor(ship)':

"A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable."

Removing a product/preventing it from being sold = removing/suppressing material (which I assume they have deemed to be morally, or otherwise objectionable).

Link: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/censor

Corporations own the government anyway.

Jess.
www.jesscscott.com

Anonymous said...

jtplayer, I agree with you IF what you are saying is that Amazon et al. are responding to market forces and that it is [perhaps] not their primary intent to be censors. If that were their goal, one hopes they would be a wee bit more thorough about it and ban ALL books with references to incest.

However, and this is an important distinction, the influence brought to bear on Amazon (and B&N) is absolutely and without question an attempt to censor the availability and/or content of a particular genre of books. It is censorship perpetrated by one segment of society and intended to be inflicted on the whole. And, for now, it's working.

You seem to be an intelligent independent guy, if a bit too eager to shoot anything that moves. Doesn't that bother you? At all? Are you really that content to abdicate your freedom of choice to mob rule? Or are you just confident that the mob's choices will always align with yours?

Yes, at the core of it, this is a censorship issue. And it is wholly unacceptable.

jtplayer said...

Yeah, I am an intelligent guy, and no, I do not feel very strongly about this issue at all.

In fact, I'd say it doesn't bother me in the least. I honestly do not view it as censorship, despite liberal interpretations of the dictionary definition of the word.

In my mind this is a commerce issue, a retailer's right to sell or not sell what they choose.

Beyond that, this is a fringe genre of fiction that I do not read and have no interest in reading. If it went away tomorrow I wouldn't lose any sleep at all. But this is merely my personal opinion.

Likewise, it doesn't bother me that anyone chooses to write this stuff, or sell it or buy it.

I do find all of the "sky is falling" rhetoric laughable, if not slightly entertaining.

Tara Maya said...

@ KDJames. I agree.

There's government censorship and private censorship. And some that's kinda in between, like when elementary schools ban books from their library. Unless the government does it, it's not illegal. Amazon has a right to sell or not sell what they want -- to censor. But I can still holler about it, especially because it's the only way to counter those who want to shut down others.

And as KDJames said, the purpose of the bullies was absolutely to censor and they would be using the power of the government if they could. When those same people are in charge in other countries, they do.

Tara Maya
Conmergence: An Anthology of Speculative Ficiton

Anonymous said...

Amazon is a corporation and is therefore inherently amoral. Because it is an amoral entity it is incapable of making decisions based on morality. If that is accepted then this cannot be censorship because censorship is morality based.

The way to use Amazon's inherent sociopathy against it is to continue loudly vocalizing that this is a moral issue and an issue of free speech.

Amazon is incapable of caring what it publishes, distributes or sells and will not change it's behavior unless it's bottom line is threatened enough.

Selena, you just keep doing what you're doing. You obviously have a great head and instinct for what you do.

TAPWUSAL

jtplayer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jtplayer said...

Re: "And as KDJames said, the purpose of the bullies was absolutely to censor"
--------------

There you go again with the inflammatory characterizations.

Bullies?

Really?

How about people who see things differently than you. No more, no less.

Earlier today someone wrote about being tolerant and open minded. You seem to be neither...at least with regards to those who voiced their objections to Amazon.

Anonymous said...

jtplayer, the vehemence and volume of your comments on this topic fail to support your assertion that you "do not feel very strongly about this issue at all." If that is indeed the case, perhaps you should cede the floor to those who do?

And bless your heart, may the genre(s) of fiction you do enjoy reading always be deemed acceptable by the mob.

On all other points mentioned, we will simply have to agree to disagree.

'night all. It has been interesting.

Marie Simas said...

Totally grabbing my popcorn for this thread. Besides checking it obsessively all day, I am enjoying the Chuck Norris fireworks.

Still think that Amazon has the right to pull titles. But I'll admit that I'd be pissed if they pulled mine.

JA Konrath said...

If it went away tomorrow I wouldn't lose any sleep at all.

Neither would I.

Which is EXACTLY the reason it would be a tragedy if it went away.

jtplayer said...

KD, could you kindly point out an example of my "vehemence"?

I think you must have confused me with another poster.

It's an honest enough mistake, as there are many taking part in the discussion here. Which is the reason I will ignore this suggestion:

"perhaps you should cede the floor to those who do?"

I'm sharing my feelings and opinions just like you and everyone else here. Surely you aren't so closed minded you think those who feel differently than you, or the majority opinion, should not have a place in the discussion?

Tara Maya said...

Jt: Earlier today someone wrote about being tolerant and open minded. You seem to be neither...at least with regards to those who voiced their objections to Amazon.

If they wanted to publish a book on their opinions, or indeed comments on the kindle board, I am happy to tolerate it. I just object if they shut someone else down.

Tara Maya
Conmergence: An Anthology of Speculative Ficiton

Tony said...

I want to apologize to everyone. I was drinking when I posted those early rants. I'm sorry. I need help. Can anyone help me? I'm so angry and alone.

Tony said...

Seriously....this is the only human interaction I have. I can't even look people in the eye. I haven't had sex in years. I don't know why i do this. I'm so stupid. So stupid. My name's not even Tony. Tony's the name of the bully who used to beat me up every day in the 8th grade.

Anonymous said...

"I think you must have confused me with another poster."

*snort* That is the funniest damn thing I've heard in a long time.

Thanks, jt, you do provide comic relief.

Now I really am going to bed. With a smile on my face. Got to rest up to deal with the snow/sleet/ice storm forecast for tomorrow. Y'know, real life conflict with the potential for literally slippery slopes. ;)

jtplayer said...

Re: "Thanks, jt, you do provide comic relief."
------------

As do you bro...as do you.

So I take it you are not going to backup your previous ignorant post regarding my participation here?

No worries then...at least I know where you're coming from.

jtplayer said...

Re: "I just object if they shut someone else down."
-------------

They didn't "shut someone else down". Amazon did that. Why are you having such a hard time comprehending such a simple concept?

Consumers complained, the seller reacted. Now you want to malign those who complained.

So if I understand you correctly, you are tolerant...to a point, as long as it fits your narrowly defined definition?

JA Konrath said...

So if I understand you correctly, you are tolerant...to a point, as long as it fits your narrowly defined definition?

You're being silly. You can't be tolerant of intolerance. Then the intolerant win, and if they do, things get bad.

I think we all agree Amazon has a right to sell what they want to sell. Most of us agree they should have specific guidelines about what is allowed and what isn't.

The other issue that's mixes in with this is: should the largest book retailer in the world start limiting what they sell based on whims or personal taste?

I don't question Amazon's right to sell what they want. They have that right.

But I can question the choices they make while executing that right, because it is indeed a slippery slope.

Amazon has chosen to delist a few titles. If they remain consistent and get rid of all similar titles, it'll amount to dozens, perhaps hundreds of books.

Then where does the line get drawn? Just erotica? Or could lit fit with an incest theme also get yanked?

And is incest just a starting point for other taboo topics being delisted? There are a lot of kinks and fetishes out there. Will those disappear too?

Then do they start on subversive books, from publishers like Paladin Press? If so, is the line drawn at blueprints for homemade bombs, or is the ideology and rhetoric that makes people want to create homemade bombs?

Again, Amazon is a retailer, and can do what they want. We can always shop someplace else.

But if a friend of mine who used to embrace free speech suddenly started getting ultra-conservative, I'd be concerned. The same applies here.

JA Konrath said...

I'm dangerously close to killing anonymous posts if you kids don't put on your big-boy pants and stop the sniping.

I value freedom of speech, but this blog isn't analogous to Amazon. People go to Amazon to buy a wide variety of books that cater to a myriad of tastes, many of them opposing. This blog caters to writers and the publishing industry, not trolls and flamers.

Stay on topic, attack the argument and not the person.

Last warning.

Tara Maya said...

I don't pressure retailers, libraries or governments to restrict what other people can read. I wish the same courtesy from other people. It's the Golden Rule. If you want to call the Golden Rule a "narrowly defined" definition of tolerance, that's your call.


Tara Maya

Tara Maya said...

Meanwhile, the switch to ebooks continues as more established writers digitize their backlist.

Tara Maya
Conmergence

jtplayer said...

Re: "You're being silly. You can't be tolerant of intolerance. Then the intolerant win, and if they do, things get bad."
--------------

No Joe, you're being silly, IMO. Equating a consumer exercising their right to complain about a product with intolerance in just wrong.

And when did this become about winning and losing? Or even right vs wrong?

I've been alive for 50 years, and I've seen these kinds of issues come and go with regularity. And always it's the same tired rhetoric from those defending the fringe, how this will lead to total banning of certain types of works, how it's censorship and it's wrong and it's the slippery slope and all that nonsense.

And through it all we still enjoy unprecedented freedom of speech in the country. All of those controversial works can still be produced and sold.

This too will blow over, and Amazon will come out no worse for the experience. IMO.

jtplayer said...

Re: "I don't pressure retailers, libraries or governments to restrict what other people can read."
--------------

Is that what happened here, or did consumers merely complain to Amazon?

Show me the orchestrated, coordinated effort to pressure those 3 entities to "ban" incest erotica and maybe I'll listen.

Otherwise, you're just crying wolf...IMO.

You guys crack me up. Prior to 3 years ago there was no such thing as Amazon's DTP. Now that there is, and it's going through some growing pains, some of you act as if it's your God given right to have free and unobstructed access to it.

Wake up, it's business man, plain and simple.

And maybe Amazon is shooting themselves in the foot with this one. Time will tell. But I wouldn't bet on it, as up to now their business model has worked out pretty well for them.

Mark said...

"The other issue that's mixes in with this is: should the largest book retailer in the world start limiting what they sell based on whims or personal taste?"

I don't think this is what is happening. I think Amazon is protecting its bottom line. They are worried about negative publicity.

"Amazon has chosen to delist a few titles. If they remain consistent and get rid of all similar titles, it'll amount to dozens, perhaps hundreds of books.

"Then where does the line get drawn? Just erotica? Or could lit fit with an incest theme also get yanked?"

The problem is that Amazon is never going to make this kind of discussion public. They will not draw a line and they will give little explanation. The more they talk about it, the more difficult it becomes for them. They are not going to go into detail to explain every decision to delist a book.

And if all they say is they found a book to be objectionable, what more can you say? They are not going to debate it with you. Just look at this message thread. Suppose they said they delisted the books because of the incest theme. Then people will get puckish and shoot back at them and tell them to remove the Bible, just like we've seen in this thread. It becomes a nyah nyah schoolyard discussion.

Anonymous said...

Considering that Ms Kitt's books are now selling like hotcakes on B&N I don't think there's a lot left to the argument here. Whatever sales she may be losing at Amazon for books over a year old by her own admission are probably being made up by a flurry of sales by supporters who don't really want the stories but want to do the "rebel" thang.

I haven't seen anything on CNN or any news network. Even the Twitter feed is pretty dead other than retweets here and there to try and ressurect the issue. While the pedeophile author at least got a sound bite I'm not seeing anyone racing to get these author air time.

Seems like a dead horse. It sucks, boycott Amazon (unless you make lots of money there) and go buy your books at B&N and Smashwords. Especially the incest erotica.

Time to move onto the next "publishing is dead" post, imo.

JA Konrath said...

Equating a consumer exercising their right to complain about a product with intolerance in just wrong.

When they're complaining about what I should be able to buy, they're showing intolerance for my views.

Selena Kitt said...

"Considering that Ms Kitt's books are now selling like hotcakes on B&N I don't think there's a lot left to the argument here."

-------------

Nope, my sales haven't budged on B&N since this started. They were always selling that way, and it was a result of a few keyword search changes, not because of this issue. I even said that in a comment somewhere on this blog before this started. The only book that's moved has been "Under Mr. Nolan's Bed" - which was a high seller anyway. It's increased recently past the highest seller on B&N, which was "Meet the Baumgartners." The other two banned books aren't even on the radar on B&N.

Oh, and BTW - some of us were on Amazon BEFORE DTP existed. :P I was on Amazon through their Mobi feed. In fact, it was ONLY after they merged the two feeds (finally, after six months) that my titles were removed. Within days.

I think they actually had been planning this and waited - because the Mobi feed was very difficult to "suppress" (their word, not mine) and DTP is easy to turn off.

Oh, and Olympia Press blogged about the deletion from B&N so you can hear it from the horse's mouth:

http://www.munseys.com/technosnarl/?p=1068

Jon VanZile said...

Wow. This is some discussion ...

But I think there's a general point being missed here. Amazon is a private entity (as opposed to a public or government entity). There mere fact of its size and reach is meaningless in this discussion. Unless Amazon is a monopoly, which it's clearly not, then size means nothing. Amazon's actions here are literally the exact same thing as an indie bookstore opting not to sell erotica because Ma Baker doesn't like heaving bosoms. When Ma pulls the books off her shelf, she doesn't have to offer any explanation at all, and she doesn't have to be consistent.

But here's the missing part: The flip-side of this is compelling Amazon to carry titles it doesn't want to carry. Surely not, right? But that's the argument here. Everyone who thinks Amazon shouldn't be allowed to pick its own titles is arguing that Amazon must be compelled to carry any particular product. But corporations and business entities have rights too ... sure, they're abridged rights, but they're rights nonetheless. There's no medical issue here (a la the abortion pill and pharmacies) ... it's just a business decision made by a private company. I would strongly defend a company's right not to carry consumer products it doesn't want to carry.

So what's the deal? No book is being banned. No book is even being censored in the government sense of the word ... it's only being censored in the same way that Wal-Mart "censors" porn by not carrying Vivid titles.

I'm not unsympathetic to Ms. Kitt's predicament. It would suck to lose such a large revenue stream. Of course. But when you operate in a risky industry (e.g., writing incest porn), it kind of implies you're willing to take certain risks, including business risks. Should she fight it? Sure, why not. But literally, no one has a leg to stand on.

On the other hand, if Amazon continues to escalate its removal of books, and eventually bans all erotica (which it would certainly be allowed to do), then maybe its customers will feel abused and go somewhere else. Just like if Joe started kicking people off his blog arbitrarily. People might just go somewhere else. Simple as that.

Jon VanZile said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Burritoclock said...

I really don't see this concerted effort in the comments to deny Amazon the "right" to remove books that is apparently seen by some of you.

Voicing a disagreement to the policy is the same as the people voicing for the removal of the book, just on the other side. Just because Amazon can do this doesn't mean no one should complain about it.

If no one complains then there is absolutely no reason to stop the policy or find a work around. However if they get feedback from the other side hopefully they will have to sit back and put some thought into a clear spelled out policy, and everyone would benefit from that. Including Amazon.

I really do not understand the "They can do what they want" argument. Of course they can. There's also not a law where I live that would stop me from putting upside down crosses in my front yard, but there is also not a law stopping my neighbors from complaining about it.

Marie Simas said...

The problem is that Amazon is never going to make this kind of discussion public. They will not draw a line and they will give little explanation.

Bingo.

Amazon would love for all this shit to just GO AWAY. And I don't blame them. This is NOT the type of press they want.

Making people angry doesn't help their bottom line. It seems similar to the Target botcott-- Target supported that bigot Tom Emmer with a large donation, and people FLIPPED OUT, calling for a Target boycott. It was legal for Target to donate to Emmer's campaign, but considering that Target has a huge gay following, it was also a huge business mistake. The message was clear: stop supporting douchebags.

In this case, Amazon is trying to just deflect damage-- and they aren't going to make a statement, because they don't want to call any more attention to this goatfuck.

On a side note, I haven't linked to my own book in this long thread, but somehow, my posting here has boosted my sales. I just checked them this morning. Joe's blog has magical powers.

John D said...

I think the real issue here is Amazon's business practices. Had they made it clear up front that books like Selena's weren't welcome on their website, then there would be no real issue. But they apparently did not make that clear. This is not acting in good faith with their business partners (indie authors/publishers). They also removed ebooks from the Kindle archives of customers without refunding the purchase price. This is not acting in good faith with their customers.

Having just purchased a Kindle, I'm left wondering whether, at some point in the future, Amazon might decide to take back a book I payed for without a refund. And authors/publishers who publish books on Kindle will have to wonder whether they might find their books being dropped without notice. One of the keys to success is inspiring confidence in the people with whom you do business. Amazon's recent actions are not confidence-inspiring.

Jon VanZile said...

Maybe this is really the story of an aggrieved minority ... Amazon has apparently decided the feelings of this minority (people who either buy incest fiction or feel very strongly about the fact that Amazon should carry it) are outweighed by its own interests, whatever they are.

As far as Amazon acting in good faith, I think that falls in the same category. Clearly, Amazon isn't worried about offending this group of people so it doesn't feel the need to act in "good faith," whatever that is exactly. The Target analogy is actually a good one ... in that case, Target offended a large chunk of consumers (gay people) and backed off future political donations because of potential financial damage. Amazon must've looked at the facts and decided they aren't in danger of a mass uprising in defense of incest erotica.

Like I said before, I fully support the idea that people can bitch about this and fight it as being unfair. They don't have a moral or legal leg to stand on, but they do have the one thing open to any consumer: the power of the purse. If enough people are mad enough and boycott Amazon, thereby hurting its bottom line, Amazon might decide to change its policy. But until that happens, it looks like Amazon's risk/reward business calculation is essentially correct: We don't need you 1% as much as you need us.

JA Konrath said...

size means nothing

Tell that to my wife.

KevinMc said...

Actually, there probably IS a legal leg to stand on, Jon. Because B&N and Amazon seem to have been acting in concert on at least some of this, this represents collusion on a market, which is illegal when those colluding have enough collective market share to represent a monopoly.

Which B&N and Amazon have, between the two of them.

So anything B&N and Amazon do together, in concert, is probably a violation of anti-trust law in the USA.

Because they control 90% of the market, that also means any book both businesses ban from their shelves has been effectively censored from access for most of the population - which is not a legal argument, because censorship is only illegal at the government level - but IS an ethical one worth considering.

I'm really hoping we see some more balance in selling sites in the years ahead. Too much control in too few hands, right now.

Anonymous said...

" Because B&N and Amazon seem to have been acting in concert on at least some of this, this represents collusion on a market, which is illegal when those colluding have enough collective market share to represent a monopoly."

I missed this - where is there collusion?

the books are still for sale on B&N, last time I looked....

Marie Simas said...

Tell that to my wife.

Bah-dum TISH!

Mark said...

"I think the real issue here is Amazon's business practices. Had they made it clear up front that books like Selena's weren't welcome on their website, then there would be no real issue. But they apparently did not make that clear. This is not acting in good faith with their business partners (indie authors/publishers). They also removed ebooks from the Kindle archives of customers without refunding the purchase price. This is not acting in good faith with their customers."

So far, they have removed three of Selena's titles while allowing another forty-something to remain for sale. I don't see a very strong good faith violation here. Amazon might make the same argument of Selena -- they never expected she would sell incest fiction and now that they have discovered that, they are acting.

Also, I don't believe they removed any books from Kindles. They removed books from their own archives, making re-downloads impossible.

This is a bit of a weakness of e-readers in general. Amazon treats the ebooks they sell us as if they are licensing a copy to us rather than letting us buy them outright. It's another argument for why ebooks need to be substantially cheaper than their paper book versions.

Ruth Harris said...

Yay for Selena!
Good news for writers!!!!!

This is from Jezebel...
Good news for fans of incest-themed erotic fiction: Amazon says it's all been a big misunderstanding. They blame tech issues.
Selena Kitt, who had self-published several incest-themed books available on the Kindle Store, had complained that the Kindle store had withdrawn them. She said other authors of similar content had complained. But a rep for Amazon contacted us and said it wasn't intentional:
Due to a technical issue, for a short window of time three books were temporarily unavailable for re-download by customers who had previously purchased them. When this was brought to our attention, we fixed the problem and those books were once again made available for re-download. We apologize for the inconvenience.
It's not clear whether that applies to the authors who complained on this thread that their books had been deleted.
Last year, authors of books with gay and lesbian themes complained that they had been re-catalogued as "adult," stripping them of their sales rankings and lowering their search optimization. Amazon blamed a glitch, and declined to comment on one hacker's claim that he'd rigged it.
Earlier: Erotic Incest-Themed Fiction Deleted From Kindle Store


Ruth Harris
Husbands And Lovers

Selena Kitt said...

"It's not clear whether that applies to the authors who complained on this thread that their books had been deleted."

-----

No, this is Yay for Kindle readers - not for writers ;) Amazon is just saying the books removed from people's archives were put back. Good of them, huh? Considering that pulling them in the first place was a violation of their own terms of service.

The books themselves have not been restored to the site.

Selena Kitt said...

"I missed this - where is there collusion? the books are still for sale on B&N, last time I looked...."
---------

Olympia Press (who isn't self-pubbed and doesn't go through DTP) had their B&N account deleted the day before Amazon pulled several of their taboo books.

Jon VanZile said...

Hmm ... even if B&N and Amazon removed certain titles at the same time, I think there's a HUGE leap to calling that market fixing. Anybody with an Internet connection can upload any book to any site of their own choosing, including the innumerable indie erotica publishers out there. There is literally NO barrier to the market at all. Amazon and B&N aren't engaged in price fixing (they're just removing products), nor are they manipulating the market in favor of their own products. If Target and Wal-Mart both decide to remove baby bibs with pictures of puppies from their shelves at the same time, is that also illegal collusion? I'm unconvinced there's even a whiff of illegal market manipulation going on here.

And ha ha, Joe! I figured you'd go a different direction (I thought for sure you'd comment on Ma Baker's heaving bosom), but a good size joke is always appreciated ...

Ruth Harris said...

@ Selena...you're completely right. I mis-read this...but if they made the books redownloadable, is it possible that the next step will be making the books available again? They do seem to want to please their customers & making books that customers want would seem to be part of pleasing their customers.

Or am I being overly optimistic?

Ruth Harris
Husbands And Lovers

Selena Kitt said...

"Or am I being overly optimistic?"

---------

Yeah, I'm afraid so.

The reality is the books aren't going to be put back up. As Mark noted, Amazon can't go back now - imagine the headlines:

"AMAZON PUTS INCEST TITLES BACK ON SITE."

They're waiting for this "goatfuck" to go away. They've waited out worse.

I'm just hoping the perfect storm keeps brewing, with removed taboo books + pedophile book + banned GLBT reviers + wikileaks...

There's no other way to fight a "majopoly" like Amazon excerpt through the consumer. The more consumers who know - no matter which "side" they're on - the better.

Anonymous said...

Selena, as a fellow writer, I admire your willingness to speak up and make yourself a target. I suspect your earlier forthright discussions over here about your ebook success, information that has value to me and many other writers wanting to make informed career decisions, played a role in the recent developments. And that's a damn shame. So, thank you.

OT, aside to jt: my siblings are more likely to call me "sis" than "bro." Just FYI.

But feel free to disagree. ;)

Anonymous said...

I strongly believe that Amazon has the absolute right to sell what it chooses. I don't agree with removing from your archives, but definitely from the site itself. Want to sell soemthing Amazon says no to? Sell it yourself. I THINK you can do that on your own site using mobi or azw formatting, but I admit I'm unclear on that.

Amazon bowing to boycott-like pressure from advocacy groups? Well, so does Proctor and gamble, etc. That is life in the corporate world.

For the record, I do NOT believe that Amazon will back away from Indie publishing. Too many chicken littles here.
Rick Askenase

Philip Nelson said...

I get the impression that people in general feel, perhaps without being able to articulate it, that there's a healthy interest in sex, that there's also an unhealthy interest in sex, and that the difference between them is in accepting sex for what it is.

That is, sex is subject to entropy; the pleasure of sex will wear out, and those with an unhealthy interest in sex strive to make it something it isn't. They try to make it last forever. And that leads to sexual addiction, and sexual addiction leads to sexual predation, because not only does the pleasure of each dose inevitably wear out, it takes more effort the next time to get the same high. Those are the universal laws of entropy and diminishing returns in action, and no amount of human effort, openmindedness, or enlightenment can make those laws go away.

Thus, there's a distinct possibility that those who read erotica about incest are doing so because normal sex is no longer enough. That's disturbing. Books about incest aren't the end of that road, and I'd venture that many in our society would recognize that.

A civilized society is one in which predators are repressed. It is therefore the reasonable perogative of a civilized society to determine what level of sexual material it wants available, and society has probably done so in this case.

And I daresay that's the bottom line for Amazon. They're not going to ban books on a whim; they'll ban books when they'll lose more sales by not banning a book than by banning it.

Selena Kitt said...

"They're not going to ban books on a whim; they'll ban books when they'll lose more sales by not banning a book than by banning it."
--------------

But that's not what's happening here. Amazon IS banning books on a whim, arbitrarily, with no regard to actual content. They (interestingly) have banned the highest-selling works of those types on the site and have done so without any warning to authors OR readers.

There are books still on Amazon's virtual shelves containing incestual sex between adults and eight year olds. (at least, according to reviewers) Yet they pulled one of mine where the incest was between consenting adults and was a surprise to everyone at the end. There are actually many mainstream (mostly romance) books that use this plot device.

So yes, Amazon has a right to remove what they like. And they're going to bow to pressure, like any company looking at their bottom line.

The question becomes - who is the loudest group? Those who object to erotic incest fiction on moral grounds? (I'm not even going touch your slippery slope argument in regards to fiction - it's too ridiculous to even posit). Or those who object to censorship of said work?

Daniel Smith said...

With all due respect to Selena Kitt, Genesis 19: 30-38 describes an act of rape, not incest, since Lot was drunk at the time and thus an unwilling partner.

A similar post was recently explored on The Kill Zone blog after Amazon pulled Phillip R. Greaves II's book on pedophilia. It was an interesting discussion with lots of thoughtful comments.

http://killzoneauthors.blogspot.com/2010/11/first-thing-we-do-lets-kill-all-writers.html

Selena Kitt said...

"With all due respect to Selena Kitt, Genesis 19: 30-38 describes an act of rape, not incest, since Lot was drunk at the time and thus an unwilling partner."

----

It wasn't my quote, it was Will Belegon's - I'm no Bible scholar!

(Do I need to add: obviously? :))

Anonymous said...

It seems to be a case of large corporations acting to maintain their customer base:

http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/national_organization_for_marriage_to_steve_jobs_youve_become_big_brother_w/

Anonymous said...

Oops. Here's the tiny url

http://tinyurl.com/2c736lk

Jaye Murphy said...

I'd rather write...not ARGUE.

Philip Nelson said...

> They (interestingly) have banned the highest-selling works of those types on the site...

Whenever a corporation or bureaucracy does something seemingly inexplicable, it helps to ask the question: what are they optimizing for? In this case, if Amazon is evaluating products for banning based only on highest number of complaints, it makes sense. The books that get viewed the most, i.e., the highest sellers, are most likely to get complaints. Books no one knows about, even if they're the same kind of book, aren't likely to get very many.

> Yet they pulled one of mine where the incest was between consenting adults and was a surprise to everyone at the end.

Now it makes even more sense. It's quite possible a significant number of those who read your book were expecting more normal erotica, and weren't happy to find out in the end that it was all about incest. I could see that generating a lot of complaints, thus putting the book higher in Amazon's complaint-processing queue.

> (I'm not even going touch your slippery slope argument in regards to fiction - it's too ridiculous to even posit).

Thoughts become actions. Before every building was a plan. Before every great work of art was an idea. And before every predatory act was a predatory fantasy.

People are what they think, and their thoughts lead to acts. That's why advertising works. And if one thing is evident about advertising, it's that sex sells.

Surely this is obvious?

Anonymous said...

Phillip, could you define "normal" and "normal erotica?"

Phillip said:
Thoughts become actions. Before every building was a plan. Before every great work of art was an idea. And before every predatory act was a predatory fantasy.

People are what they think, and their thoughts lead to acts. That's why advertising works. And if one thing is evident about advertising, it's that sex sells.

Surely this is obvious?

Me:
Phillip, could you please define "idea" and "fantasy" and differentiate between the two? You use the terms as if they are one and the same.

Before every great work of art is an image, according to the platonics and neoplatonics, and not an idea. The term "idea" is an Anglo-Saxon reduction of the classical Greek notion of "image." As Jung said, "Image is psyche." And as Hillman said, "Imagination is the native activity of the soul." The Greek word for and notion of "soul" is "psyche." Psyche does not equal mind nor give rise to ideas. Unless your coming from a Skinnerian and/or purely neurological perspective your arguments are vague and unfounded.

It is clear that sex sells but it is neither obvious nor accepted by a vast number of philosophers and psychologists that people are what they think. Why would you expect people here to be so ignorant that they accept what you say without question or criticism?

Fantasy does not lead to destructive action. The repression of fantasy leads to destructive action. Fantasy is expressed through art and ritual when not repressed and when handled in a healthy way. Fantasy arises autonomously from the soul/psyche. And psyche, as understood by the traditions from which its elucidation arises,is an a priori archetypal aspect of human being, along with body and spirit.

Psyhopathological predation and addiction arise not form incest fiction but form the repression by individuals and culture of fantasies of violence and, if you're speaking of pedophilia, of sex with immature and/or adolescent human beings.

TAPWUSAL

Star-Dreamer said...

*Steps out of the shadows where she’s been lurking*

I haven’t completely finished reading all the comments, but this is my outtake on the matter.

First of all, I’ll just let you know outright that I don’t like erotic fiction, and I am certainly against incest…

HOWEVER

I can’t say I totally agree with what Amazon did either. Perhaps they’ve had some people pressuring them about the erotic incest thing taking over shelves, and that’s why they’ve removed the titles. I wouldn’t really know… this is not my kind of topic. But what I do know was that IF (and for me, this is a great big “if”) I was a Kindle owner who had purchased one of your books, Ms. Kitt, I would be pissed off if someone just took the title off my device… especially since it’s MY device, and I PAYED for the book. What does that say for the other writers who try to step out of the box? I’m a fantasy writer here (not that kind of fantasy writer). What if, one day, they just decided to ban horror because it was too scary? Where would “Frankenstein” go? Or what if it was decided that all Fairies were little devils incarnate: what would happen to “Peter Pan”? They don’t have a right to do that. They may have made the device, but now they’ve sold it to millions of people around the globe: it’s like they’re selling it with “strings attached” or something. Who wants to buy something like that?

Warning the authors that they are removing their books is one thing, even if it’s really heartrending… And I mean REALLY heartrending. I know it would be awful to receive such notice, even though I haven’t personally. For that you have my sympathies. But then removing the books from customers who have already bought the books outright… who now own copies of those books… that’s just a really, really low blow. That’s hard. Really. And that’s why I think paper books will never completely go out: ebooks are too easy to completely remove from the archives. Sorry ebook people… this is the proof, right here. I’m not saying I don’t like ebooks… actually, they’re sort of starting to grow on me. But we need paper books if only to keep a physical record of things so that they can’t get lost in cyber space.

As for the problem with refunding customers, I was wondering what would happen if you offered to email a pdf of the book to the customers who contact you about the problem? I don’t know how much it would help, but can’t many smart phones read pdfs? And we know that computers can…

Star-Dreamer said...

And maybe – even though (if you’ll excuse my saying so) I’m not really FOR anyone publishing books on excessive erotica or incest – maybe you could find another POD publisher for your other books. Lulu, perhaps, or something similar… I haven’t looked very much at the POD publishers so I couldn’t really name more than that. Sorry. Although, you might want to be careful with that as well… I’m just saying, if Amazon has started getting finicky, who knows where it might hit next.

And anyway, I just finished a semester of Shakespeare: wasn’t his plays all about sex and violence and incest? (Though I will mention that the Bible does say somewhere that incest is wrong… just saying. And no, I didn’t have time to look it up on the spot, but I know it’s in there. Again… just saying.) What I’m thinking then is that perhaps what Amazon has against the books is the excess of the sex and incest as themes, and the lack of moral judgment… though, you’ll remember, I don’t read those kinds of books, so I wouldn’t really KNOW what they would consider “excess”.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

*Steps back into the shadows where she can hide in safety.*

Selena Kitt said...

"I’m just saying, if Amazon has started getting finicky, who knows where it might hit next."

That's really the problem, isn't it? Will erotic incest fiction start to disappear from all virtual shelves everywhere?

Most, like you, won't care. Because, as they will be sure to note (as loudly and clearly as possible - again and again :) that they don't read THAT.

But what's next? There are many many bdsm titles, for example, that push the limits of consent. What will be next on the hit list?

It's also going to be interesting to see which erotic incest titles ultimately disappear. I doubt Nabakov's Ada or Ardor will go away. Or Anais Nin's House of Incest. And there are many many erotic m/m books in the genre that have "twincest" (twin brothers having sex with each other). Will those be removed?

Amazon may have started a very dangerous trend.

Chryse said...

I personally find incest stories offensive for reasons I have no interest in detailing here. However, I do this weird thing called not buying the book. Do most folks "use" such material for fantasy purposes and no other reason? Don't doubt it. Do the majority of writers who read books on forensics decide to use what they learn to kill people? Probably not...unless none of us are getting caught. I think almost any source of information, with the right mind, can be used to some unintended purpose.

Selena Kitt said...

Just an FYI - Amazon is now banning books with "rape" in the title:

http://tinyurl.com/259rdz5

S. A. Soule, Creativity Coach said...

Interesting topic.

After reading this, I had to wonder why they aren't pulling the V.C. Andrews's books. They have both incest and incest with rape. And they are young adult novels.

Is it only self-published books? So, if they are book printed by a "publisher" are those okay? Hmmmm....

Star-Dreamer said...

"Most, like you, won't care. Because, as they will be sure to note (as loudly and clearly as possible - again and again :) that they don't read THAT."

Lol... *blush* sorry about that. :)

Cheryl said...

So I tried, I really tried, to read all of the comments to see if what I wanted to say had already been said but there are just too darned many. So I'm proceeding willy-nilly.

The one thing I've found interesting in reading this (and clearly coming in quite late) is that no one, at least of the comments I read, has mentioned that this practice isn't just ebooks. Amazon has been doing this, probably daily, since it started selling digital content.

I ordered the movie "Coraline" (because who doesn't love Neil Gaiman?) when it first became available for purchase - tells you how long ago this happened. I purchased it, not rented it. When I went back several months later to watch it again, it was removed. I have no idea when they removed it and I had to call and ask for a refund. I was told it was removed because they lost the license. Well, great. Why didn't you offer me a refund when you took it back? And I don't recall any vocal outcry like there was for 1984.

Which leaves me to believe books are pulled from Kindles all the time. Movies are pulled all the time. Music probably isn't affected nearly as much because the music is usually transferred to iTunes or something so they have no direct access. I'm praying they don't come out with some crazy MP3 player that will only play music from them because you know it will lead to some new proprietary format that won't let you play it anywhere else. And if that wouldn't be crazy enough, people will buy it.

All their digital content is open to removal from your archives at any time. Last time I checked, even the periodical subscriptions that you may have purchased are going to be tied to the serial number of your Kindle and *not* you - so hope you never have to get your kindle fixed if you have periodicals because you won't get yours back. I don't know if the periodical thing is still the case but at the time I was finally jumping on the ereader bandwagon, it was.

And there have been complaints about this very practice forever and yet it hasn't changed, people still shop there and people will still continue to shop there. It's unfortunate but true. They will continue to take back what they bought and hope you never notice so they can keep their money.

I would like to see an accounting of how much money they've "chosen" not to return to people who have no clue they are missing purchased items. I bet it's fairly substantial.

I no longer purchase anything digital from them. If I ever purchase an ebook from them again, I will download it to my hard drive. I can't do that with movies unless I get software that allows me to record my computer screen so I won't be buying movies at all.

The moral of this book I've written is that when dealing with Amazon and any digital content, buyer beware. This isn't an anomoly. It didn't only happen with 1984 or erotica. Amazon does this all the time with everything digital. They simply have a very poor business model when it comes to digital content and it's not stopping anyone from shopping there.

I tend to think that the backlash just isn't going to mean much to them or their bottom line. It hasn't before and it probably won't ever.

And that's why I went with a Nook.

Becca Sinh said...

Selena:

Amazon did the exact same thing to me...banned several of my books without explaining why, or what I'd done wrong. When I protested, they terminated my entire account, claiming that I violated their TOS by resubmitting stories after being told not to. I DID NOT, and can prove it...but they refused to even discuss the matter with me. And since there's no way to go over "Duncan C's" head, I can no longer post anything at all on Amazon (my largest source of income).

Now PayPal is trying to force censorship down the throats of my other publishers...and my books are being removed from Smashwords and who knows how many others. And I wonder why PayPal is doing this, when such a decision is going to hurt their bottom line as much as the authors who are supplying their income.

Consensual sex between adults is exactly that: consensual. And when it's written, it's nothing more than fantasy. Fantasy is not illegal, or worthy of censorship. They might as well ban J.D. Robb (my hero--I want to be her when I grow up!! LOL) for writing about murder! Or, as other people have suggested, the Bible. When you start really reading it, the number of explicit debaucheries are appalling!

I don't know where all this is heading...but I definitely don't like the handwriting on the wall!

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 300 of 300   Newer› Newest»