The American publishing industry has long prided itself on publishing ideas and narratives that are worthy of our engagement, even if some people might consider them unsavory or dangerous, and for standing its ground on freedom of expression.
But that ground is getting shaky. Though the publishing industry would never condone book banning, a subtler form of repression is taking place in the literary world, restricting intellectual and artistic expression from behind closed doors, and often defending these restrictions with thoughtful-sounding rationales. As many top editors and publishing executives admit off the record, a real strain of self-censorship has emerged that many otherwise liberal-minded editors, agents and authors feel compelled to take part in.
Over the course of his long career, John Sargent, who was chief executive of Macmillan until last year and is widely respected in the industry for his staunch defense of freedom of expression, witnessed the growing forces of censorship — outside the industry, with overt book-banning efforts on the political right, but also within the industry, through self-censorship and fear of public outcry from those on the far left.
“It’s happening on both sides,” Sargent told me recently. “It’s just a different mechanism. On the right, it’s going through institutions and school boards, and on the left, it’s using social media as a tool of activism. It’s aggressively to increase the pain threshold, until there’s censorship going the other way.”
Looking at the examples cited in the article, I’m not sure what the fuss is about. The examples given seem to be mostly be successful authors who had mean things said about them, which is not at all the same as authors whose work was “suppressed.”
The one book mentioned that was in fact withdrawn appears to have been an academic text that was criticized for being bad sociology. That is, the author was claiming expertise that she did not actually have.
Publishers exercise editorial judgement. While some controversial books are also excellent, being controversial is not itself a sign of artistic merit.
(Just to be clear, as in most posts in the And Now For That Latte forum, I am writing in my personal capacity, not as the Voice of L&L.)
I have no insight what happens behind closed doors (or mouths) of the U.S. publishing industry, but I’d find it surprising if it was spared from “cancel culture”.
History has not been kind to Immanuel Velikovsky, the protagonist of the article you cite. I suspect it will be equally unkind to Abigail Shrier, lionized in the article the OP links.
Complaining about “cancel culture,” in either its 1983 or 2022 form, is one way to shift the conversation away from the actual content of a book.
If someone blames it to distract from the embarrassing fact of having published a shelf hugger, yes. But aiming to destroy the livelihood of someone who said something disagreeable – how’s that supposed to shift the conversation to the actual content?
That’s not what’s happening in the examples cited in this thread.
I don’t think “something disagreeable” is an accurate characterization of either Velikovsky’s work or Shrier’s, and both of them were/are quite successful financially.
More generally, there are abundant examples of people writing op-eds in the New York Times, or appearing on major TV networks, or appearing before large crowds of paying customers to complain about how they are being “silenced.” If that’s what “cancellation” looks like, where do I sign up?
I assume we can agree that publishers are not obligated to publish everything that is submitted for their consideration.
Once we accept that premise, then it’s impossible to say whether a particular choice was “good” or “bad” without engaging with the actual content of the book. “Book makes X group mad” is not necessarily a reason to reject it, but it’s not necessarily a reason to accept it, either. Sometimes X group has a legitimate complaint because the book really is bad. That appears to be the case in at least some of the examples discussed here.
If one’s famous enough (and not persona non grata enough) to get those opportunities then it can have the opposite effect. As in: more advertising. Who wouldn’t want to sign up for that?
Do you think that average Jane or Joe author can afford an opinion and get the opportunity to vent on tv or write a NYT article in case enough people think “someone like that” shouldn’t be published (even if the book isn’t controversial at all)?
Of course.
Yes, I’d even say it doesn’t matter if we accept that premise. It’s always hard to judge anything without knowing what it actually is. How do we judge the content of an unpublished book?
That shouldn’t be a reason for any decision making process. Because it’s virtually impossible to please everyone.
“Really bad” in terms of what? Badly written? Getting all the facts wrong? In this case the group having legitimate complaints should be the editors at the publisher.
Going against the Zeitgeist? In that case it should be impossible to have legitimate complaints. At least, they shouldn’t count.
Why are our discussions always so weird? Because I think we don’t even disagree. And yet we argue. Might very well be my fault.
If a book is already published then banning it is great for sales. But if it is aborted before seeing the light of day then what?
I suppose that is where self-publishing comes in as was discussed previously.
The Communists tried to strictly control book publication and this lead to Samizdat – self-published, underground press.
Anyway, I am not surprised that both sides try to stop the proliferation of opposing ideas even though it seldom if ever works. The real solution is to provide a better idea.
Well yes, that’s exactly my point. These complaints about “cancel culture” aren’t coming from unknown, unpublished authors. They’re coming from people who are already successful and famous (or notorious, as the case may be), and are complaining that people with less success and fame are saying bad things about their work.
Immanuel Velikovsky, mentioned in the article you linked, apparently spouted pseudoscientific nonsense about the history of the Earth. (His professional expertise was in psychiatry, not geophysics or geology.) The loudest complaints about his work came from academics in the relevant fields.
Abigail Shrier, mentioned in the OP’s article, apparently also relies on pseudoscience to argue that gender dysphoria is a result of social contagion and promotes therapies that are viewed as actively harmful by the mental health community. (She herself has no professional expertise in mental health.) The loudest complaints about her work come from people who have been diagnosed with gender dysmorphia.
Admittedly, I haven’t read either author and don’t intend to. Both are readily available – which is my point! – if you’d like to assess them yourself.
While Obama certainly isn’t exactly unknown or unpublished, I think he wouldn’t object if someone said bad things about e.g. Trumps work. And I suspect he doesn’t care what people say about his work (beyond reasonable criticism).
What about J.K. Rowling? Does she need to sell more books? Is she mad because some people don’t like Harry Potter?
Is Pope Francis a poor misunderstood dude craving for attention, because nobody listens to him, let alone would dare to publish his ideas?
Really?
The way you put it, only unsuccessful authors who have to make up for their lack of talent (or expertise) cry “censorship!” as a marketing stunt and to deflect valid critisicm (regarding their actual work, not some unrelated Tweet).
Of course there’re such people, too. Always will be. That’s not the problem.
No, actually that’s exactly the opposite of my point. My point is that authors who are unsuccessful for whatever reason aren’t generally given platforms to complain about the “cancellation,” justified or not, of their work. The public discussion of “cancel culture” is focused almost entirely on people who are already successful public figures.
Undeniable. Of course famous (or infamous) people get more attention. Not always warranted, but what can you do. However, I think it’s worth listening when public figures–who are not affected personally–speak up against unhealthy developments in our society.
It’s pretty bad when comics, who are generally left of center, say they won’t do universities anymore because the radical left has no sense of humor and will close down any attempt at free speech.
We live in strange times. Or, as the Chinese curse goes “May you live in interesting times.”
I often wonder how we “know” our press is free. Anytime a work is rejected for any reason, there is a possible miss of relevant information. Any time an editor determines that something “isn’t worth reading” are we limiting our collective material for decision making?
My concern is that we have gatekeepers who determine what is good, healthy, worthwhile. These gatekeepers have convinced us that they know best. Or at a minimum are better qualified to identify what is better. To me this sounds like the same nonsense that comes from every extremist organization that is controlling the information the “congregation” is allowed to have.
How do we insure freedom of thought if we can’t have freedom to read deserting views no matter how extreme they are?
In the age of the internet, gatekeepers have exactly the amount of power that we choose to give them. I guarantee that a few minutes with Google will find any “dissenting view” you want, no matter how extreme.
For that reason, I invite all thread participants to do some research on the “Paradox of Tolerance.” A perfectly tolerant venue has no way to defend itself against intolerance, which is why completely unmoderated internet fora inevitably turn into toxic swamps.
Except there are gatekeepers on the internet. As someone that may have been forced to remove access to content deemed “unsavory” by people not owning that content, I can assure you that information is being removed from the larger population’s view.
I don’t have an answer to the problem. My opinion is that freedom of thought is becoming an illusion in our lifetime.
Did it ever exist? As Solzhenitsyn said, “The difference between the Russians and the Americans is that at least the Russians know that they are slaves.”
So to save it, tolerance needs to become intolerance?
Who gets to decide what’s still okay and what goes too far? I hope the answer is not “some market-dominating multinational corporations”. The state? Maybe. But which one?