PayPal vs Smashwords: Censorship and fiction

As you may have heard, Smashwords is currently in talks with PayPal regarding the publication of “questionable” erotic fiction. As a writer and publisher of erotica, this concerns me.

Smashwords’ founder, Mark Coker, is currently in talks with PayPal about the situation, as what PayPal is proposing is ultimately censorship.

As a writer and publisher of erotica, I agree with Coker that PayPal has no business telling us what we can or cannot write about. If the work is fictional, it’s legal.

PayPal is worried about topics such as bestiality, rape and incest. But, when applied to fictional works, these concerns make no sense. No real person or animal is being harmed by writers who graphically describe a man fucking a donkey (or, perhaps more to the Smashwords point, one half-man/half-donkey hybrid fucking another half-man/half-donkey hybrid). So why should anyone be concerned about this content? It is, in a word, ridiculous.

Think about it: Lolita is the story of a pedophile, who describes his love and lust for the underage Lolita—whom he drags across America, violating her in one motel room after another, following the death of her mother (who, by the way, he only married in order to get at her child). Would PayPal have had Smashwords censor Nabokov’s seminal work, claiming that it violated the Terms of Service concerning rape and incest?

This is exactly the kind of madness PayPal is proposing.

Here is what Coker said in an email to the Smashwords community about the company’s views on fictional instances of incest:

*Incest:*  Until now, we didn’t have a policy prohibiting incest between consenting adults, or its non-biological variation commonly known as “Pseudo-incest.”  Neither did our retailer partners. We’ve noticed a surge of PI books over the last few months, and many of them have “Daddy” in the title.  I wouldn’t be surprised if the surge in “Daddy” titles prompted PayPal to pursue this purge (I don’t know). PI usually explores sexual relations between consenting adult stepchildren with their step parents, or between step-siblings. Effectively immediately, we no longer allow incest of any variety in erotica.

Pseudo-incest? The name itself says it all: it’s not real incest, it’s pretend. So what is there to censor? If, as Coker suggests, these titles concern consenting adults having affairs with their step-parents (i.e. people who are totally unrelated to them by blood ties), I am flummoxed by PayPal’s desire to suppress this material. It’s not like these writers are saying, “Go out and rape your step-daughter; here’s a how-to manual.”

As Coker eloquently puts it:

Like many writers, censorship of any form greatly concerns me. It is with some reluctance that I have made the decision to prohibit incest-themed erotica at Smashwords. Regardless of your opinion on incest, it’s a slippery slope when we allow others to control what we think and write. Fiction is fantasy. It’s not real. It unfolds in our imagination. I’ve always believed fiction writers and readers should have the freedom to explore diverse topics and situations in the privacy of their own mind. From an imagination perspective, erotica is little different from a literary novel that puts us inside the mind of farm animals (1984), or a thriller novel that puts us inside the mind of a terrorist, or a horror novel that puts us inside the mind of an axe-murderer or their victim. All fiction takes us somewhere. We read fiction to be moved, and to feel. Sometimes we want to feel touched, moved, or disturbed. A reader should have the right to feel moved however they desire to be moved.

Incest, however, carries thorny baggage.  The legality of incest is murky. It creates a potential legal liability for Smashwords as our business and our books become more present in more jurisdictions around the world. Anything that threatens Smashwords directly threatens our ability to serve the greater interests of all Smashwords authors, publishers, retailers and customers who rely upon us as the world’s leading distributor of indie ebooks. The business considerations compel me to not fall on the sword for incest. I realize this is an imperfect decision. The slippery slope is dangerous, but I believe this imperfect decision is in the best interest of the community we serve.

While I can’t say that I will be personally affected by PayPal’s crackdown, as I do not currently offer any titles that concern bestiality, rape or incest (or use keywords to that effect), I categorically do not support PayPal’s moral policing of Smashwords authors, and I stand by my fellow authors who do write about these topics.

It is their right, as authors of fiction. To suggest otherwise is censorship, pure and simple.

Coker is correct when he says that this is all a slippery slope. If PayPal can tell erotica writers who tackle dangerous or taboo subject matter to stop writing, then they can tell erotica writers who tackle completely normal subject matter to stop writing, too. And once they’ve silenced erotica writers, why should they stop there? They will have set a precedent, enabling them to eliminate any writers they deem unsavory or dangerous. Horror writers, crime writers, mystery writers that splash too much blood on the page… hey, why not?

That, to me, smacks of fascism. Do we live in a free society, where writers are able to dream and imagine and write as they please, or do we live in a concentration camp of the mind, where only “acceptable” ideas are considered?

PayPal cannot tell writers which ideas are acceptable. It isn’t up to them. Readers will decide, and they will vote with their dollars. And if PayPal doesn’t want our dirty money, then they will ultimately drop out of favor as the “preferred payment method,” and someone else will step in to enjoy the profits.

So I guess the question for PayPal is: do you want to keep making money, or do you want to be the vice squad? You can only pick one. Think fast.

If you support freedom of speech and the writers who publish with Smashwords (like me!), sign onto this letter from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to tell PayPal you think they should stick to handling money and keep their opinions about morality and erotica to themselves.

Personal privacy and literary executors

folleThis story is driving me nuts. Friday’s Gazette reports that Nelly Arcan’s money-hungry publishers are trying to hack into her computer to exploit the potential goldmine of unpublished work it houses. Various experts weigh in, throughout the piece, suggesting either that it’s the publisher’s right to do this or, more sanely, that it’s up to her family or any “literary heir” she may have named in her will.

But first things first: since when have publishers become so powerful? Show me the line in a writer’s contract that says their publisher owns the rights to any and all writing that author may have produced throughout her lifetime, and I’ll show you a line that needs to be struck by a good lawyer. Especially when authors may move from one publisher to another, as Nelly Arcan did. The money-grubbing bastards at Éditions du Seuil should be slapped for their naked greed, suggesting that they will be publishing a posthumous novel by Arcan in 2010, and infringing upon her personal privacy rights by hacking into her computer. It’s disgusting.

It’s not clear from this article whether Arcan did have any sort of contract with Éditions du Seuil for this untitled “forthcoming” novel (Montréal publisher Coups de tête is slated to publish her final novel, Paradis clef en main, though it’s possible she may have had another contract with the French publisher), so to be fair, perhaps she had a two book deal (or more) with them that they are just trying to claim. But even so, it’s très gauche to be discussing business less than a month after Arcan took her own life.

Furthermore, the piece doesn’t make it clear what right, if any, the publisher would have to print an unfinished piece, over and above her family’s wishes. Jean Barbe, of Éditions Leméac, is quoted as saying that it’s up to the family to decide whether or not to allow the publication, and agrees that it is a question of greed to discuss the issue at this point in time. Nancy Morelli, on the other hand, suggests that it would actually be up to the literary executor, if any exists, because it’s really a question of intellectual property ownership.

Troublingly, Morelli says that there is no concern for the wishes of the deceased herself, if she has not named an executor. She asks, “Are we to respect the wishes of Franz Kafka, who said, ‘Destroy all my stuff’?”

In a word: Yes.

To me, this is not a question of intellectual property—which unquestionable belongs to the author, unless she has somehow signed this all-important right over to an immoral publisher—but of personal privacy. The thought of someone hacking into my computer to publish all of my private thoughts, random scribblings, bits and pieces that are half-baked or merely jotted down to jog my memory at a later date is truly troubling. Private items should be kept private, no matter how much they may allegedly add to the literary canon. Authors hold their work back for any number of reasons, and if they specifically state in their will that they want their unfinished works to be destroyed, this should be the final word.

OriginaloflauraThis calls to mind the issues surrounding Lolita author Vladimir Nabokov’s final, unfinished work, The Original of Laura. At the time of his death, Nabokov’s wife and son were named the literary executors and instructed to burn the work. Wrestling with this, the work was put aside in a bank vault, but not destroyed. Nabokov’s son, Dmitri, finally decided to publish the book in 2008, and an excerpt is to be published in the December 2009 issue of Playboy. Is this what Vladimir would have wanted? Clearly not, as he instructed that his notes be burned. Is this going to boost Dmitri’s own profile as the “literary heir” of his famous father? Undoubtedly. Who gains, and who loses? And is it right to disrespect the wishes of the artist who created the work?

These are issues of personal privacy, and of trust. Perhaps it is silly to argue about whether or not someone who is no longer on this plane of existence would be upset by these betrayals and intrusions, but I wonder if we would feel the same way arguing over the same issues with regard to living authors. J.D. Salinger is still alive, but refuses to pen more stories for the world. This is totally his right, and anyone who attempts to publish his works without his permission will be reprimanded. Why shouldn’t the same be true of deceased authors? Do we have any more claim on their life’s work once they, as the gatekeepers, are out of the way? Should we not continue to respect their privacy by refusing to publish unfinished work, particularly work that is password-protected on a computer?

There is something very sinister to me about those who argue in favour of publishers’ rights, because it seems to me that these are the very people who would like us to believe that personal privacy is just a myth. If it is, then they have all the right in the world to trample our privacies, our rights and freedoms. And that simply will not stand. If an author must burn her own work in order to protect it from prying eyes, then clearly something in the publishing system is broken. I certainly would not want my own computer hacked into, my private writings published against my will, or my trusted friends and relatives to betray me. And if writing that into my will isn’t going to prevent those things from happening, then what the hell will?

Literary Snobbery meme

I was tagged by two of the most fabulous Facebook users in the world, AV Flox and Atherton Bartelby, so obvs I have to complete their literary meme now! Feel free to join in the snobbery if you are a literary type, or wallow in your tragic illiteracy if not. (This has also been posted on my Facebook page, so apologies if you’ve already read it there.)

1) wintersonWhat author do you own the most books by?
Jeanette Winterson

2) What book do you own the most copies of?
I don’t really have any repeats, though I’ve bought Beautiful Losers at least three times now. Damn Cohen thieves.

3) Did it bother you that both those questions ended with prepositions?
It’s post-gym. I’m tired. Eff prepositions in the arse. But yes.

4) What fictional character are you secretly in love with?
Holly Golightly, bless her whorish little soul.

4a) What fictional character would you most like to be?
Hmm. That’s a tough one, as I always seem to like the losers, the underdogs, and the not-entirely-together. Let’s go with Harriet the Spy. She still amuses, after all these years.

4b) What fictional character do you think most resembles you?
Lolita. Or maybe Humbert Humbert?

5) What book have you read the most times in your life?
Beautiful Losers

6) harrietthespyWhat was your favorite book when you were ten years old?
Harriet the Spy. Or maybe those god-awful Sweet Valley High books. I devoured books in series, back then.

7) What is the worst book you’ve read in the past year?
Undoubtedly something I had to review for publication, so I will keep mum.

8) What is the best book you’ve read in the past year?
The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things, J.T. LeRoy

9) If you could force everyone you tagged to read one book, what would it be?
I think I may be forced to echo Ms. Flox on this one: “The one I publish one day, duh.”

10) Who deserves to win the next Nobel Prize for literature?
Salman Rushdie. I mean, c’mon already. Does the fatwa not speak for itself?

11) What book would you most like to see made into a movie?
I fear most good books make terrible movies, but what about Post Office?

12) What book would you least like to see made into a movie?
Any and all books that fall under the heading “chick lit.”

13) Describe your weirdest dream involving a writer, book, or literary character.
Nabokov’s son emailed me to tell me how bad I suck because of a sex column I wrote. Wait, that was real.

14) What is the most lowbrow book you’ve read as an adult?
Happiness™ by Will Ferguson

15) What is the most difficult book you’ve ever read?
Anything by Kathy Acker. I have problems with “experimental” literature and plagiarism.

16) What is the most obscure Shakespeare play you’ve seen?
This is embarrassing, but I have only seen Othello with a high school class. And we were mostly mortified by the way the actors showered us with spittle, sitting in the front row. Umbrella? Thanks.

17) Do you prefer the French or the Russians?
I am currently reading Anna Karenina, so I will side with the Russians. For now.

18) Roth or Updike?
Having never read any Roth (the shame! the horror!) I will say Updike.

19) davidsedarisDavid Sedaris or Dave Eggers?
Sedaris, hands down. Eggers is a poseur.

20) Shakespeare, Milton, or Chaucer?
No thank you. I successfully avoided all of these classes as an English Lit major and I’m not about to cave now!

21) Austen or Eliot?
I don’t do “lady authors.”

22) What is the biggest or most embarrassing gap in your reading?
It is a bit embarrassing that one can have an English Lit degree without having been forced to take the Shakespeare, Milton or Chaucer courses at one’s university, but I refuse to feel shame. I have seen enough to know it’s not for me.

23) What is your favorite novel?
Beautiful Losers

24) Play?
Is it plebian of me to say “The Shape of Things”?

25) Poem?
“As the Mist Leaves No Scar,” Leonard Cohen

26) Essay?
“Art Objects,” Jeanette Winterson

27) tiffanysShort story?
“Breakfast at Tiffany’s,” Truman Capote

28) Work of non-fiction?
Kitchen Confidential, Anthony Bourdain

29) Who is your favorite writer?
I love my man LC, but I feel compelled to say J.M. Coetzee.

30) Who is the most overrated writer alive today?
That damn woman who wrote those stupid “Twilight” books that all the pre-teens are reading these days. Bleh!

31) What is your desert island book?
I hate these “desert island” questions, since I can never decide whether I want an old fave or something that will keep me occupied for a long while. How about the Tao Te Ching just to hurt my brain?

32) And … what are you reading right now?
Anna Karenina by Leo Tolstoy, as well as Do Everything in the Dark by Gary Indiana, and a vast assortment of magazines, newspaper articles and whatever’s close at hand.