There’s More Than One Way to Ban a Book
New York Times | Pamala Paul
Joyce Carol Oats tweeted this NYT article, noting, “A friend who is a literary agent told me that he cannot even get editors to read first novels by young white male writers, no matter how good; they are just not interested.” In the article, Paul explains that “a real strain of self-censorship has emerged that many otherwise liberal-minded editors, agents and authors feel compelled to take part in… many books the left might object to never make it to bookshelves..scuttling a project for ideological reasons before a deal is signed.” Paul admonishes the Left for their illiberalism— “We shouldn’t capitulate to any repressive forces, no matter where they emanate from on the political spectrum…For those on the illiberal left to conduct their own campaigns of censorship…is to violate the core tenets of liberalism. “
Paul explains, “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…repression is taking place in the literary world, restricting intellectual and artistic expression from behind closed doors…a real strain of self-censorship…[that] otherwise liberal-minded editors, agents and authors feel compelled to take part in.”
It happens not as outright book banning, but, as Paul explains, within the process—”a softer form of banishment happens earlier in the publishing process: scuttling a project for ideological reasons before a deal is signed, or defusing or eliminating ‘sensitive’ material in the course of editing… Even when a potentially controversial book does find its way into print, other gatekeepers in the book world — the literary press, librarians, independent bookstores — may not review, acquire or sell it..”
Paul rejects the idea of litmus tests, encouraging risks— “[Publishing] decisions should be based on the quality of a book as judged by editors and publishers, not in response to a threatened, perceived or real political litmus test. The heart of publishing lies in taking risks, not avoiding them… We shouldn’t capitulate to any repressive forces… For those on the illiberal left to conduct…campaigns of censorship while bemoaning the book-burning impulses of the right is to violate the core tenets of liberalism. We’re better than this.”
