Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Skar

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 128
166
Books / Re: Bookswim: Netflix for books
« on: December 18, 2007, 12:23:35 AM »
So that's essentially $7.50 to read a book I don't get to keep.  Personally, I wouldn't do it.

I think the people at bookswim would be way better off figuring out a way to churn out print-on-demand copies of acceptable quality and then offering to convert publisher's and author's old stuff into that format and maybe providing the store front on the net. 

I'd pay $15-$30 dollars for 1 book, if it was a decent quality paperback, maybe trade, and was something I couldn't easily find at a brick and mortar.

But, keep in mind, that I am a distinct bibliophile.  I love owning books.  Putting them on the shelves, taking them down, smelling them, running my hands over them... sorry, got carried away there.

Just read more on their site.  Looks like you can buy the books you really like and just keep them.  That's nice.  Makes it more like you're paying for a library to your door service.  Not bad.

167
Brandon Sanderson / Re: I want info about Goodkind/Brandon's comments
« on: December 14, 2007, 12:57:15 AM »
Achren: You are absolutely right.  He would know who Saul of Tarsus is.  Claiming otherwise is absurd.

Hannibalelantrian: I liked every one of Goodkind's books, I really enjoyed them.  The later ones were different than the earlier ones and I still enjoyed them, for different reasons even.  In some ways, I liked them more.  Thus I think  I can honestly say I'm a true fan. 

However, an author who writes about magical creatures like wisps and dragons(anciently anyway), magic swords, mother confessors, wizards, etc... who claims his books are not fantasy has a screw loose.  Thinking the guy is nuts when it comes to classifying his work doesn't disqualify me as a fan.

Goodkind's books take place in a fantastic setting, his conflicts are based on magic, incontrovertibly so.  His books are fantasy.  If he claims otherwise I will simply point out that he's nuts while I gleefully read his next book.

168
Books / Dragon Magazine, newbies beware?
« on: November 28, 2007, 04:55:23 PM »
Scalzi has on his blog today a screed against Dragon Magazine's new short fiction contract.

http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=159

Apparently they pay on the low end per word and buy ALL rights to a given work, not just First North American Serial.  Since I know there are many aspiring writers who frequent this forum, I figured it was worth pointing out, both that Dragon is accepting fiction submissions again and that there might be some things to beware of if you submit there.

Also, of course, I was hoping that Stacer would comment since she works over there and may have some insight on the matter.

169
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 26, 2007, 10:21:30 PM »
Oh, I entirely agree.  Pullman's "God" is, essentially, a straw man.  I never felt that his books should be yanked from the libraries.  But, apparently, the author of the email Brandon got does.     

Let's make some signs and go picket the picketers!  Who's with me?

170
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 26, 2007, 06:39:26 PM »
Nicely stated, SE.

Since pulling the Pullman books off library shelves would cross into enforced censorhip, I guess the question would now be: 

Does exposing children to a series of books that espouses atheistic ideas constitute a threat to public safety?

I can see an argument to be made for both sides of that one. 

  • If we posit that God will punish us as a nation if we become unrighteous and that kids may choose atheism because of these books, then I think the wrath of God would constitute a threat to public safety.  (Locust storms, earthquakes, etc...)
  • Or, if we posit that atheism is inherently wrong, then surely Pullman's ideas will be defeated in children's minds by those ideas we, their parents, expose them to which contradict Atheism.

Of course, we're talking public libraries and schools so we have to look at just how close we are to having books with religious ideas we do agree with censored away in the name of separation of church and state.  Surely censoring away Pullman's books would open the door to censoring away religious books as well.

171
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 22, 2007, 12:42:13 AM »
Fell-

Yeah, we've got different definitions of censorship.  I only want to call enforced censorship "censorship" and you'd like to call any instance of one person making it harder for another person to view a work "censorship" on a sliding scale, with enforced censorship on one end and a literary snob tending not to order SF books for her library on the other. I'm not saying your definition is invalid, just trying to define it for the sake of the discussion. (If I'm wrong, let me know.)

I do, however, have a problem with lumping my brand of enforced "censorship" in with all the other un-enforced instances you want to include in the term.  The enforcement, in my mind, is an important line, since that's when one person starts imposing their will on another.

The problem is that in order to stop  censorship, (which, I think we can agree, is usually the goal) one entity must impose its will on another, just like enforcing censorship.   It could take many forms, perhaps  insisting that Larry Miller show Brokeback Mountain in his theaters his wishes be damned, or a government decree that all people must read a certain book.

Stopping censorship on any level of your sliding scale involves imposing our will on other people, which is exactly the same thing we object to with censorship.  What makes one instance of forcing your will on another better than the other?

I'm only OK with imposing my will on others when they're trying to do the same to me.  And only then for long enough to make them stop.

What scares me is the idea that people should be allowed to decree what Larry Miller must show in his theaters in the name of resisting censorship.  That kind of thing also creeps up on you, and in today's social and political climate it's far more likely than old school censorship.

42-

I agree with you.  Not all censorship is a bad.  The word itself carries a lot of emotional baggage which colors it evil but making it illegal for children to be shown porn is nothing if not censorship and nothing if not good.

172
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 21, 2007, 09:46:44 PM »
Quote from: Fellfrosch on November 21, 2007, 07:28:10 PM
I was not suggesting that failing to stock a book in your bookstore because you don't have room, or because you don't like the genre, or because you think other books will sell better, is censorship. I'm suggesting that failing to stock it because you object to its ideology and don't want anyone to read it is censorship.

You make an important distinction.  However, making censorship hinge on what's going on in the guilty party's head (which is inherently unknowable for the rest of us) rather than their actual impact on the availability of the book allows every crappy writer to scream censorship when his book is rejected by the publishers.  Or the man with no money outside the movie theater to scream censorship over the theatre's unwillingness to give him a ticket.  Less than useful.

Quote
Also, I'm totally not getting the "free will" argument: you're saying that it's okay for a bookstore to make material unavailable because they're doing it of their own free will, and that means its not censorship? So when a government makes the same decision, they're somehow not doing it of their own free will? I could understand if you were talking about the audience's free will, because taking away an audience's free will is one of the key points of censorship, but to point to the distributor's free will as a counter-argument against censorship makes no sense to me at all. If I ran around burning copies of Huckleberry Finn I'd be doing so of my own free will, but that doesn't make my actions any more defensible. It makes them less defensible, if anything.

The free will argument comes down to this:

Larry Miller choosing not to show Brokeback Mountain is not impinging on anyone's free will.  He is only exercising his own. He may have made it harder to see the movie since he happens to run quite a few movie theaters, but if anyone chose to make their own arrangements to see the film, exercising their free will on the matter, he'd have nothing to say and nothing he could do about it.

The government ruling that no one may see the movie is impinging on the citizen's free will.  Should the citizen make their own arrangements they would be penalized, which brings us back to the threat of violence.  The same applies to the censor who destroys every copy of a book.  They have physically prevented others from reading it.  This is censorship.

173
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 21, 2007, 06:55:22 PM »
Sigyn, you're not someone I picture when I think of heads in the sand, at all.  Yet, I said it.  My apologies,  I didn't mean you. 

There are people who take the time to understand an idea, give it honest thought, and then choose not to espouse it or bother entertaining it anymore.  Then there are people who hear the word "Atheism" and stick their fingers in their ears lest they understand the concept and burn out their brains.  They're the ones I was thinking of as having their heads in the sand.

I imagine they are also the ones who will be picketing the movie theaters on the strength of a mass email.

174
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 21, 2007, 05:28:51 PM »
Ok, this confluence of real life and forum blatherings is just too good not to point out.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2190410

Squee!

175
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 21, 2007, 12:10:40 AM »
Quote
I don't need to see a porn movie to know I don't want to see it, same with torture porn.  I know I don't want to see that, same with something that's anti-religious.

See, this is the question I'm interested in teasing apart.

I am totally OK with the guvmint censoring torture porn and all it's ilk.  I'm not OK with the guvmint censoring atheist movies or mormon movies or communist movies or jewish movies or marxist movies or nazi movies , etc... 

There's a line there.

What defines it?  Why is censoring porn to keep kids from seeing it different from censoring "The Golden Compass" to keep kids from seeing it?  Is keeping porn from kids merely a moral standard most of us happen to share, or is there some deeper principle involved?  Is there a line of secular reasoning that provides for the one but not the other?

Is it because we're physically wired to react to porn but not to intellectual ideas? 

How about violence then? Violence needs to be censored from kids too.  Are we physically wired in some way that watching violence has a detrimental effect on par with watching porn?
 

176
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 20, 2007, 11:09:46 PM »
Yes, all enforcement is based on the threat of violence, neither by a cavalier definition on my part nor all that remotely.  Since the enforcer has to answer the question, "How are you going to stop me?" it's unavoidable.  Next time a cop tries to stop you for speeding, try just ignoring him.  You'll see that it gets quite violent, very quickly.

If we're going to define censorship as "anyone choosing not to disseminate a piece of artwork for any reason" like Larry Miller and Brokeback Mountain or Deseret Book and Anita Stansfield in your example, then you and I are censors too for we are not disseminating those works either.

Seems to me that censorship, in order to have any useful meaning, has to describe a person or people forcing other people not to see something. Attaching penalties to possession of the offending work, destroying all copies of the offending work, etc...  In your two examples, the guilty parties are merely deciding not to promote something.  It's not censorship, it's free will.  Theirs.


177
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 20, 2007, 07:21:39 PM »
Fell: I quibble.

Quibble 1
If the book being out of the library did, in fact, make it "completely unavailable" then the librarians actions were, in fact, backed up by the threat of violence.  Since forcing the librarian to change her actions would be illegal, the law protected her actions.  And, as we all know, the law only carries force because of, ultimately, the threat of violence.

Quibble 2
My second quibble is that, even in the 50s, the library was not the only source for the books in question.  And as long as it was perfectly legal for private citizens to obtain the book on their own, it wasn't enforced censorship.  It was simply a librarian abusing her position to make it harder to get the book.  And to prevent that paradigm you'd have to start legislating what a librarian can and cannot request for her library.  Nobody wants that.  It would be far simpler, if the town in question wanted the book badly enough, to simply replace the librarian. 

Of course, if the local government resisted her replacement with the power of the law, then, again, we're back to the threat of violence.

178
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 20, 2007, 06:54:35 PM »
Quote from: Sigyn on November 20, 2007, 06:22:41 PM

Actually, this seems completely appropriate to me.  We live in a free market economy.  If you disagree with a book, don't buy it.  If you disagree with a movie, don't see it. And you are perfectly within your rights to encourage others not to see it as well.  This isn't censorship; this is exercising the right of the dollar. If I think a book is crap and tell others not to read it, that isn't censorship.  My reasons for hating the book doesn't make my trying to get others not to read it censorship either.

As my statement, which you quoted, makes pretty clear, I didn't say it was censorship.  I agree with you, and explained that I agree, that you're within your rights to stick your fingers in your ears and hum.  And you are, as I explained, also perfectly within your rights to encourage others to also stick their fingers in their ears and hum.   It's just a little pathetic that those who are so averse to the ideas in the movie are so unsure of the quality of their own ideas that they feel they mustn't even listen to the ideas in the movie. It's not wrong, just pathetic.   Are they afraid that the ideas in the movie make more sense than theirs do?  Are they afraid that they're so virally compelling that they or their children will be unable to resist them?

Quote
As for not letting children see R-rated movies, that's because the government believes in protecting children from certain things like explicit content. However, they can't stop you from showing your kids these things in your own home. It's the difference between public and private consumption.  Here's an interesting article on that:
http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175743/

Yes, when I referred to the secular laws against taking kids to "those" films, I was, in fact, talking about the government.
So is it censorhip?  Is it appropriate? (I think it is.)  Why?  What's the difference between censoring explicit sexual content or graphic violence and censoring certain ideas, like the brand of atheism in "The Golden Compass"?

179
Books / Re: column: EUOLogy: On Pullman and Censorship
« on: November 20, 2007, 05:39:55 PM »
Quote
Am I the only one here that feels that unless it's done by the Government it's not censorship?

Hear hear.  To expand on Spriggan's point (Spriggan, forgive me if I have misunderstood you)  Unless the threat of violence is used to force people not to read/see/hear a given work of art, it ain't censorship.  It's simply people expressing their opinions opposing the work.  Which is, of course, them exercising exactly the same rights of free speech the person who created the offending work exercised to begin with.

Artists who cry "censorship" when their work is opposed through speech or other peaceful means are, essentially, insisting that they have a right to free speech but those who disagree with them don't. (The laughable antics of the Dixie Chicks complaining about the massive drop in their sales after their anti-Bush remarks come to mind.)

Now, to Brandon's point, I agree and think it's rather foolish to oppose ideas you don't agree with through the kind of head-in-the-sand tactics the people who sent him that email are using.  Insisting that a movie should be boycotted because the ideas contained therein don't agree with yours is equivalent to sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.  If your ideas are really so weak that they can't survive single combat in the arena of discussion and debate, your betting on the wrong dog.

Now, here's a question for y'all.  I can't quite put my finger on the difference between saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "The Golden Compass" and saying you shouldn't take your kids to see "SAW4" or "Debbie Does Dallas."  All my reasons have to do with my moral compass, religious beliefs, etc...which not everyone shares.  Yet there are secular laws in place to prevent me from taking my kids to those shows. Is the government preventing certain segments of the population, kids, from seeing certain shows censorship?   Is it good?  Why?  Why not?

180
Brandon Sanderson / Re: More Art for You to Digest
« on: November 15, 2007, 12:15:47 AM »
Yea verily I declare that all who like the white dress better are foolish heathens and must be ignored.  Yea, for the orange dress doth be greatly superior. Jerks.

Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 128