In the Interest of Press Freedom

For several days now a picture has been posted widely online, in fact one might say it had "gone viral" in modern parlance. In spite of its easy availability Buckingham Palace has asked me not to publish the picture on my blog on the grounds that it violates the privacy of a well-loved member of the royal family. But the larger issue is one of press freedom. For that reason, and nothing to do with getting a few more hits than normal, I have decided to publish and be damned.

So here it is. The picture the Royal Family did not want you to see:

Next week: Harry gets his nob out.

Ultimate Marketing Ploy

Forget social networking, blogging, book tours etc. I've hit upon the ultimate book selling ploy of all. Get banned.

Think about it. Doesn't a ban make you automatically want to read something? In the Sixties and Seventies, when Radio One had the monopoly of airtime for pop music, a ban meant a single wouldn't be played anywhere and yet every song the BBC banned - and there were quite a few - made number one in the charts overnight EVEN WHEN NO ONE HAD HEARD THEM.

And who among you remember Peter Wright's 1987 memoir Spycatcher, famously banned by Margaret Thatcher for compromising national security? In spite of being illegal in the UK - or was it because of - it became an international bestseller despite being deadly dull. I bought a copy myself just to annoy the Tory government.

People hate censorship. (At least most people do - there are no absolutes in life, and there will always be some saps who think the authorities know best.) So banning something makes it much cooler, much more interesting, even daring, than the run of the mill pulp fodder we usually snack on. If They don't want me to read it, I'm damn well going to read it.

Which is why I have just ordered a copy of Kurt Vonnegut's WW2 memoir Slaughterhouse Five, banned by a high school in Missouri.

And I'm now trying to figure a way of making my next book bannable? (Is that a word? It is now)

Suggestions, folks?

Censored

Well, after five (or is it six) years on writers' boards it has finally happened. A post of mine was deleted on Absolute Write Water Cooler. Yes, I'm still reeling from the shock too. Anyone who knows me knows I don't post Without Due Care And Attention, unlike some. Usually I agonise for hours before poking a tentative toe into a discussion - even then I mince my words so finely the meaning is almost lost for fear of upsetting anyone. I'm not a troll by any stretch of the imagination.

Of course I understand the need to edit - as writers we do it every day and only a fool gets so attached to his words he can't accept the process. But obliterating someone's opinion is a very dangerous road to go down. You may not like what others think, but even if you disagree it should be an opportunity to reevaluate your own opinions. As humans we need that outlet. Without the ability to express ourselves what else do we have? Terrorists plant bombs because they have no voice. They up the stakes until someone listens.

But don't worry, I won't be planting any bombs. This has however made me reevaluate my opinion of that board. Any place that has no respect for individual writers and allows the mob to rule is probably best avoided. It's taken some years, but I am learning.

Censorship

The Chatterley trial raises the question of whether censorship is ever justified. It is interesting that although Lady Chatterley's Lover was banned in Britain between 1928 when it was written and 1960, it was obtainable abroad during those years by anyone with the means. So, the conclusion would be it was less a fear of the corruption of morals than the fear of the implications of an elicit liaison between the classes that kept it on the censored list. Britain in these years was seeing the slow but steady dismantling of its class structure. Change always brings fear; the social unrest that manifested during the 20s and 30s might have been inflamed by such a book. The working class might get ideas above their station. I've no doubt the Establishment were running scared of revolution.

Were they right? Can the morals of the characters in a novel be a risk to society?

Interestingly it tends to be sexually salacious material that is targeted rather than violence. I've read many books whose characters carry out the most loathsome acts and hold the most loathsome opinions. American Psycho, springs to mind. The inner thoughts of a psychopath who tortures and kills for entertainment is about as loathsome as it's possible to get. If we're concerned about morality shouldn't books like that be banned? But they aren't and no one suggests they should be.

So why is sexually explicit material more damaging to us than violence? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

The Lady Chatterley Trial

What? Two posts in one day???

Yes, I know it's extravagant but I saw this article on a forum and just had to share it.

It's a terrific story (the trial, I mean, although the book isn't bad either), and an interesting legal perspective from Geoffrey Robertson QC. I particularly like his observation that

The key factor in the decision to prosecute was that Penguin proposed to sell the book for 3/6; in other words, to put it within easy reach of women and the working classes. This, the DPP's files reveal, was what the upper-middle-class male lawyers and politicians of the time refused to tolerate.

I'll be posting about censorship next time.