I held my breath and linked Sunday to Ellora’s Cave, home to such masterpieces as Orgasm Fairy and Authors in Ecstasy. There. I’ve linked again. So why the uneasiness?
TeleRead, while about e-books in general, focuses especially on schools and libraries and related matters. That raises Issues. Granted, I’d hate to see government censorship of Ellora’s, which takes care to set limits and avoids child porn. Many of the offerings are no bolder than what you’d see at a drugstore. But as a practical guy, I still felt queasy about Ellora’s showing up in the TeleBlog blog since I know that schools and libraries in the Real World don’t relish explicitly presented erotica.
I linked only because Ellora’s story would increase people’s understanding of the e-book business. In fact, its site is far more professional-looking than most of the tamer e-stores, and I see that Blackmask has followed up with its own recognition of founder Tina Engler’s accomplishments at Ellora’s.
If this blog were a library
But what would I do if the TeleBlog were a library or school? How should a library regard erotic e-books or, for that matter, “mainstream” works with more than a dollop of explicit sex? In the future that’s bound to be an unduckable question. With various filtering techniques, librarians in theory would be able to identify and censor problematic e-books more easily than p-books, using automation. Then again, I understand that present U.S. law allows only the filtering of images, not text or audio; the only filtering is in the selection process done by humans.
So where do you draw the line? What if a foot-fetish man devours women’s fashion magazines? Should public libraries ban Glamour and Seventeen as porn? And here’s a more important issue: The sex that repels Puritans might at times entice young readers to read more or read, period. Here again, I’d be a pragmatist. Sustainable community libraries generally must not stray too far beyond the standards of their…communities. But just what’s “too”?
I know of one Net-and-e-book project that sank for unrelated reasons, but might have failed anyway in a conservative southern state that demanded filtering but wouldn’t have gotten it to the desired extent. I hate filtering, by machines or humans, just as much as I do digital rights management. But in other case, there might not be any other choice. You can get the wires and boxes in and hope that the community wises up later on–which it might not ever do if you make it politically impossible to begin the project in the first place.
Choice thoughts from Bloomington
So how does a professional librarian in small-town Illinois feel? Remember, I’m only a civilian. So I called on my friend Rochelle Hartman, an ALA councilor with a long-time interest in censorship issues. Here are a few choice thoughts from Bloomington.
“I think you’ll find widely varying policies at different libraries regarding ‘erotica,'” Rochelle tells me. “It’s a mixed and contentious bag at many libraries. I think the main difference between titles pushed by publishers like Ellora’s Cave and more ‘mainstream’ fiction is purely in the marketing. I think you could pull a significant number of mainstream, high-selling titles and find content every bit as spicy as what you get in smaller press titles. The smaller press are just more honest in labeling their content…
“I just looked at the Ellora’s page, and really like that they have a ratings system. The stuff that they have rated as ‘S’ for sensuous, is probably no different from some material marketed as ‘romance’ by the larger houses.”
Erotica from “Pre-Jesus-loving” Anne Rice
Among the mainstream authors, says Rochelle, much of what the “pre-Jesus-loving Anne Rice” has written is “pretty much erotica” which has made it to most library shelves. Same for Laurell K Hamilton, a writer of supernatural/vampire/soft-core novels. ”
“Librarians would be…just as likely to purchase Laurell K Hamilton in e-book, and much less likely to purchase e-titles from a publisher that makes no bones about the fact that they specialize in erotica,” Rochelle says.
“So, there’s plenty of spicy stuff in libraries–it’s just not marketed as such…
“Larger libraries may stock select titles,” Rochelle says, “but I think many libraries shy away from titles that are marketed as erotica. I just did a keyword search of our consortium’s catalog under erotica. Out of maybe a million records (a rough estimate), I only got 26 hits as keyword and fewer as a subject heading. Maybe that best answers your question.”
Depends
I suspect that some female readers of the TeleBlog will think that libraries should keep violence- and sex-filled titles away from teens, while David “Blackmask” Moynihan might pipe up with an emphatic “No,” judging from his recent comments posted in this blog.
My own answer would be “It depends,” and that the overall worth of the book should be considered. Do librarians censor Shakespeare or the Bible? Or Norman Mailer? If the writing shines, then I would allow a book more leeway, especially in an big metropolis where teenagers might actually hear worse in rap music, both in a sex sense and a violence sense.
But what to do about Lolita? I say allow it, based on literary quality. Just now I queried the catalogue of the public library system for Natchitoches Parish in the conservative northern part of Louisiana, far from New Orleans. I found the book matter of factly filed under “Middle aged men – Fiction” and “Girls – Fiction.” Perhaps librarians are not quite the prudes that David M would put them down as.
Some librarians might even allow The Sexual Life of Robinson Crusoe, a novel that David has cited in his concerns over library censorship. Based on the snippet I’ve read, it isn’t as this book will inspire the typical patron to go out and engage in unnatural acts with monkeys. The real issue might simply be, “Could the library better have spent its money on other books?” If I were Amazon, however, I’d almost surely include the Crusoe book since it would not be preempting another. In fact, the actual Amazon does list it.
Access controls
I’d also argue that not all but many of the people most likely to act on twisted urges won’t be reading books anyway, but rather limiting themselves to rap, videos games and movies, including the Terminator films made by the esteemed governor of California. While I started out this post about sex-related questions, clearly the violence factor also enters the pictures. Perhaps in some cases, aged-related access controls would help sooth the conservatives, and controls in fact would be possible for e-books–ideally with provisions for liberal parents to override them.
Whatever the medium, e- or p-books, the community standards question is no fun for the decision makers, given that the answers are bound to enrage someone. Just what should you do when the most sex- and violence-filled books are the ones that certain teenagers may be most likely to read? How–when libraries are supposed to be responsive to those they serve–do you turn down a young patron asking you to buy a well-written but loathsome title for your collection?
The glories of a local autonomy
And in the opposite direction, regardless of the ALA’s staunch anti-censorship stand, how would you feel as a librarian if a literate perve read Lolita and unlike other local readers did prey on a teenage girl? Would the novel have made him more likely to act out his lust? Methinks probably not. A few librarians may at least privately feel that Lolita shouldn’t be in the library, however, even if it isn’t a threat. Most will follow the example of the Natchitoches system and offer the novel.
Nationally librarians seem to have agreed to carry Lolita. Regardless, exceptions surely exist. This is why I’ve argued that a TeleRead-style national digital library system should not undermine the ability of local librarians to make their own decisions, and that local professionals should always be free to make their own acquisitions to fill in gaps in a national collection.
Tough, dirty work. But when it comes to a librarian’s job, someone’s gotta do it.
As a European woman, I can only shake my head at such “problems”. Do you sell books in the US that only 18-year-olds can buy?! If that is not the case (and if it is, that’s pretty sad, to say the least), then libraries have no right whatsoever to select what their patrons can read. If you start censoring sexual content, you have to take classics like the Decameron – and all Shakespeare titles – from the bookshelves!! And pretty soon you will start censoring un-christian content, un-American content, etc. Where do you stop?
Thanks for your comments with a Euro perspective. I’ve already addressed the classics question. Few U.S. libraries–maybe even none–would censor Shakespeare and the like. What’s more, like you, I intensely dislike censorship.
As a practical matter, however, most U.S. librarians feel uneasy about making too-sexy content available to young children. It’s a difference in cultures. The issue of, “How are they spending my tax money?” is a perennial one in U.S. politics–something that does not arise with bookstores (which, by the way, are hardly immune to laws involving minors). And that’s why the issue is on my radar as a library advocate. But coming up with policies on access to body rippers is a long way from political censorship.
No apologies for everything American, by the way. Under George Bush, political spying and repression in general have very definitely increased. Let’s focus on the very real dangers, including the Patriot Act risks.
Anne Rice has actually written hardcore S&M pornography, not just the lame soft-core vampire novels.
Libraries should be content-neutral as a rule. It is acceptable, even desireable to restrict content to those of an adult age, but to restrict content based on the nature of that content is not something any government agency funded in any way by taxpayer dollars should do. Let the consumers choose for themselves.
Would that more taxpayers in the States give professional librarians as much leeway as the librarians would like. Perhaps with e-access controls related to age, it would be safer to include a wider range of titles. I’d certainly hope so, Richard! Thanks for your comments, including the tidbit on Anne Rice.