Srcsmgrl

Sunday, April 12, 2009

You'd think we were an evolved species

And then Amazon contributes to the censorship of literature:

I decided to take out the link, as such things don't need to be left up undefinitely, but you can still find it at Smart Bitches below.

Thanks to Smart Bitches, Trashy Books and SB Sarah for the movement.

Did you know that restricting access, ie. moving a book out of regular circulation or its usual collection, is a form of censorship? You deny access by making a book harder to find.

Update:

Upon getting El JoPe's first comment below, I decided to further look into this, and Amazon can't seem to decide what to say about it themselves. Earlier articles have an Amazon rep saying that it was done purposefully, while a newer article by the LA times claims it is a "glitch". Interesting. However, I don't feel it is a bad thing that so many are letting Amazon know how they feel about this issue. I shop there--even for my groceries lately--and I want to be able to feel good about it.

And that said, I guess I should include a link to the petition.

And here is an explanation by author Heather Corinna about why this hurts authors listing on Amazon:

It's not that the books are no longer listed. If you search for a book by title or author, you will still be able to find it.

Rather, it's that those of us with books that have been deranked no longer have our books in the bestselling book ranks, where they appeared before (and would still appear, as that is based on our sales) nor listing under the subject headings in lists for our subjects/genres.

So, unless someone is coming unto Amazon and looking for our book by title or author, they are unlikely to find it. That's a huge issue for authors -- especially those of us who are marginal in some way to begin with -- as often consumers browse those lists to find our books.

Labels: ,

12 Comments:

  • Umm, sorry, but that complaint is BS. "Bastard Out of Carolina" and "Lady Chatterly's Lover" both come up just fine for me. Auto-complete even works fine.

    The other examples in that "definition" were also in bad taste.

    By Blogger El JoPe Magnifico, at 7:35 PM  

  • It was supposed to be in bad taste, silly. Sorry if it hurt your eyeballs.

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 8:21 PM  

  • Lack of sales rank is a very poor grounds for complaint. If I based my decisions on sales rank, then I would be reading Danielle Steele novels, like my mother does.

    The Google-bomb doesn't hurt my eyeballs. It just makes the "Smart Bitches" look juvenile.

    By Blogger El JoPe Magnifico, at 10:39 PM  

  • http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/04/12/sh-amazon.aspx

    By Blogger Meagan, at 7:51 AM  

  • Thanks Meagan. And as the Slate article says, El JoPe, any censorship is bad censorship. Why should some books be treated differently from others? I am sure that some people felt that different but equal was ok. Or don't ask, don't tell.

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 8:49 AM  

  • And this article at the Christian Science Monitor lays this down well. And it says that rankings are important...

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 9:02 AM  

  • Consider from a different perspective: Do all books get equal promotional investment? No. Is that censorship? No. If a walk-in book store chooses not to put a best-selling bodice-ripper on display with the other best-sellers, is that censorship? No. Does the library itself generally put sexually explicit books on display? Undoubtedly there are exceptions, but my experience has been that the library errs on the side of prudishness. Is that censorship?

    "Any censorship is bad censorship" is all well and good, but it does not apply here. It's a hot-button issue, and the whole lot of you are having a knee-jerk reaction. The key point is that promotion does not equal access.

    The problem is not their policy itself, but rather that the policy has not been implemented consistently in its stated form, i.e. "adult content" without any slant against LGBT material. If they address the consistency issue, then there is no problem.

    There is a plausible possibility: The rank-yanking accidentally went live before they had finished marking everything in their system. That would indeed be an honest technical glitch.

    My gut instinct is that it was something similar, but not quite as excusable: They simply didn't provide sufficient oversight and/or resources for said marking system. Having worked on such marking systems firsthand, I can attest to the difficulty.

    Still, their PR machine is clearly being disingenuous to some extent, and that much I'll readily agree is irksome.

    By Blogger El JoPe Magnifico, at 11:17 AM  

  • Sorry, I don't think you are reading the same articles that I am. The fact that STILL, as of a few minutes ago, a search on Amazon of the word "homosexuality" brings up anti-gay books top and foremost is a problem. The fact that you can find books on how to training for dog-fighting and cock-fighting are easily found. The fact that Amazon has not limited access to heterosexual adult content in comic books, novels, etc. All of these are problems.

    This is censorship. As a librarian, I know what that is.

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 11:22 AM  

  • Also, this has been going on for MONTHS: http://craigspoplife.blogspot.com/2009/04/is-amazon-homophobic.html

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 11:23 AM  

  • BTW, I do concede that it is likely something that happened without the appropriate people at Amazon knowing. I doubt they wanted this kind of publicity. However, I am proud of the online community for being so vocal about this. I do not think it is wrong to speak out about it.

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 11:31 AM  

  • Absolutely, it's worth speaking out. Glitch or deliberate, it needed to be fixed. No argument there.

    But a Google-bombing campaign is a juvenile way of "speaking out". It's the kind of tactic that makes me want to lower my voice an octave and say, "Grow the f*** up."

    By Blogger El JoPe Magnifico, at 11:50 AM  

  • Thank you for your opinion. Have a nice day.

    By Blogger srcsmgrl, at 6:01 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home