I would really like my readers to weigh in on something. Something that I'm not sure I'm right about.
The newspaper editor disagrees with me about the Dr. Seuss situation. His take: "... I think [the Dr. Seuss company] ha[s] been unfairly criticized. End of the day, they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales. God bless profitable America."
Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move with the "deplorables".
If the company (corporation?) did this to boost profits, I hope it hurts them financially in the long run. I don't want censors to prosper, especially when they make their decisions based on "someone was/might be offended". It doesn't matter to me if they had the "legal right" to do what they did-- that's a statist notion.
I think this shows the flaw with IP generally and with copyright, specifically.
Dr. Seuss didn't make this decision about his works, someone else who was entrusted (by whom?) to manage his legacy has decided to vandalize it, instead-- in my opinion.
If they won't publish those books, I think it would be perfectly ethical for someone else to publish them-- especially if they used some of the profits to support causes Dr. Seuss would have supported. I can't imagine him supporting cancel culture, but maybe he would have-- I know he was a flawed human being.
But what do you think? Is this something they have a right to do and I am being anti-market if I object? Which side of the divide do you find yourself on?
-
Thank you for helping support KentForLiberty.com
Get a Time's Up flag or two
"...they made marketing decisions they think will increase sales..." There in lies the rub. It follows along the lines of the Nazi solders "just following orders". It is censorship, plain and simple. As such I am free to discourage everyone I know from supporting them through sales.
ReplyDeleteWe all know censorship is wrong, so when it happesn it needs to be challenged.
IP and copywrite rules are to protect the publishers and producers, not the original artist. Systemic racism is a fraud perpetrated to pit each of us against our neighbors. I don't think Seuss was writing about or supporting racism, and this is just gaslighting to try to change our perspective of reality.
IMHO
Jeffersoniantoo
"Thomas Knapp lumped those like me (and Claire Wolfe) who don't think this was a good move with the 'deplorables.'"
ReplyDeleteUm ... no, I didn't. I mentioned neither of you. Nor did I even mention people who don't think this was a "good move."
The set of people/attitudes I mentioned consisted of "woke approval, deplorable outrage, investor interest, and low-information reader fear, all of which are good for business." There's no implication therein that everyone on Earth falls into one of those sets.
Well, I did fit one set, by my reaction. I was outraged. I was not approving, interested, fearful, or some other unnamed reaction. I think anyone who reads that who is outraged would feel they were placed in the set labeled "deplorable", even if that wasn't the intention.
DeleteYes, the estate has the right to do this (I am assuming that the managers of the estate were chosen by Theodor Geisel in his will). No, it is not a truly ethical decision because an individual’s literary works are a reflection of both their own personality and the era in which they worked and to limit (or even worse, edit) those works in a way that tries to disguise or alter these facts is a bastardization of their ultimate meaning and true cultural value. And no, I don’t believe it is a wise move for the economic utility of the capitol the estate manages in the long term to be tainted with ‘censorship’ in this way. Perhaps in this regard Mr. Geisel made a bad choice in who he entrusted his legacy to. But then it is a vain hope to think you have any control over what you say or write after it leaves your mouth or pen, even while you are alive, much less dead.
ReplyDeleteI wonder how many of the original estate managers who were chosen are still involved-- or if there has been enough turn-over that no one he chose still remains.
DeleteI guess it would be smart to include a condition that no censorship of your works, because of changing social attitudes or whatever, will be allowed without the estate becoming public domain (or going to anyone willing to publish without alteration).
Setting aside the f"intellectual property" aspect, in what universe is ...
ReplyDelete"I own something. I get to decide whether to use/sell it. I'm not going to use/sell it."
... "censorship?"
That's an even more wildly insane use of the word than the owner of a social media platform getting to decide who may use it for what.
As for outrage, there's no reason there can't be "deplorable" and "not deplorable" versions of it. Nor was the use of the word intended as an insult. "The deplorables" have widely adopted the term as a badge of honor.
Speaking of which, as of last September, Claire was writing "Whether you like him or not, pray that Trump wins in a landslide; the alternatives are too ugly to contemplate." Which, contrary to her usual good sense, sounds squarely in the "deplorable" camp.
I would expect that the trustees or managers of an author’s estate, especially the literary works that the author left after his death, would be primarily concerned with protecting the existence of them and continuing to distribute those works. Admittedly, I don’t know the terms of Geisel’s will and thus the specific conditions that he required in it. But ending the publication of certain of those works; books that, to the best of my knowledge, the author himself did not repudiate while alive, seems to me to very clearly fit into the category of posthumous “censorship” of part of his lifetime oeuvre.
DeleteWell, I see you put "censorship" in quotes, where it belongs.
DeleteIn my opinion (see my Garrison Center column), this was a business decision that involved posturing in a way that maximized sales of Dr. Seuss's other books by ostentatiously (and almost certainly temporarily) pulling a few that nobody was buying anyway off the market.
It's not clear who really runs Dr. Seuss Enterprises, but presumably, as with most companies, that person or board is most interested in turning a profit. Which also happens to be the best way of ensuring that Dr. Seuss's oeuvre continues in print -- sometimes in full, sometimes in part, as has always been the case. They just leveraged this particular "in part" period to their advantage.
I don’t doubt the possible validity of your explanation for the actions of those in charge of the Dr. Seuss books, although I do, as noted above, regard this as an action that will eventually have a negative effect on the reputation and availability of those works. I have no doubt at all however that those actions can be accurately described as censorship, in quotes or out.
DeleteFrom The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (1979)
Censor – n. an authorized examiner of literature, plays or other material, who may prohibit what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable.
Censor – tr.v. to examine and expurgate.
Censure – n. an expression of blame or disapproval.
The definitions you quote don't seem to support your usage.
DeleteYou also write:
"I do, as noted above, regard this as an action that will eventually have a negative effect on the reputation and availability of those works."
I think you've got that exactly backward. Millions of people who had never heard of those works before now have. And I'd be surprised if the first free "pirate" scans of them took more than an hour after the announcement to pop up on the Internet.
“The definitions you quote don't seem to support your usage.”
DeleteIrrespective of how the ultimate consequences of this censoring finally play out; either benefitting or harming his body of work, it does not obviate the fact that the books were censored. A censor found them objectionable and certain of them were expurgated from the future publication list and the reasons given for this were an expression of blame or disapproval.
“…I'd be surprised if the first free "pirate" scans of them took more than an hour after the announcement to pop up on the Internet.”
Does this mean you have already changed your mind about this being a move for higher profits?
If “Dr. Seuss Enterprises ….. is most interested in turning a profit”, then doesn’t their actions leading to free versions being distributed in pirated editions where they make nothing unless they engage in expensive lawsuits to recover what they already possessed rather do the opposite of benefitting their profits? Perhaps they are poor business people in addition to being censors?
No matter how many times you use the word "censor" in this context, it won't be any more applicable to the actions you're describing than would be "antidisestablishmentarianism" or "papaya."
Delete"Does this mean you have already changed your mind about this being a move for higher profits?"
Usually you're pretty good with logic, but not in this case.
“No matter how many times you use the word "censor" in this context, it won't be any more applicable to the actions you're describing than would be "antidisestablishmentarianism" or "papaya." “
DeleteWell, it is a free country, supposedly, so you can defend the Humpty Dumpty view if you want, even with a scornful tone if that’s your wish.
From “Through the Looking Glass”
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”
Nevertheless, I’ll stick with the dictionary. Once again:
Censor – n. an authorized examiner of literature, plays or other material, who may prohibit what he considers morally or otherwise objectionable.
Censor – tr.v. to examine and expurgate.
Censure – n. an expression of blame or disapproval.
“…the books were censored. A censor found them objectionable and certain of them were expurgated from the future publication list and the reasons given for this were an expression of blame or disapproval.”
Clearly, you aren’t convinced. So be it. There is no point in ‘beating a dead horse’ it plainly isn’t going anywhere but where it’s at so I’ll sign off.
Yes, you keep citing a definition that in no way resembles the use you're putting the word to. Like Humpty.
ReplyDeleteWhat word would you use to describe what was done? "Censor" (the verb)-- "to examine and expurgate" fits exactly what was done. You don't have to be a government employee to censor-- that's nowhere in the definition. I censor myself all the time (at the expense of truth, but for social reasons). Sometimes censoring myself is also wrong, but I'm probably not depriving anyone of something they'd value when I do so.
DeleteBut, if that wasn't censorship, what was it? What's the more accurate word?
If you own an egg and decide one day that you're not going to scramble it for breakfast, have you "censored" it?
Delete"Censorship" is an act of government force. The owner of a thing deciding to use or not use that thing is as far from "censorship" as it's humanly possible to get.
Thomas is correct. It is their property to curate and the decision on how to utilise that property belongs to them alone. The outrage machine, on all sides, needs to STFU. Not our property, not our business. One of the key components of liberty is MYOB. Take it to heart.
ReplyDeleteI disagree that it's "not our business." They made a public announcement about it, and everyone else is perfectly entitled to have an opinion on the matter and to express that opinion.
DeleteBut words mean things. According to Kent and RR's newly expanded definition, every time Kent posts something he wrote on his blog, he's "censoring" the other eight billion people on earth whose stuff he didn't post. And every time a radio host decides to have Guest A on, he's "censoring" Guests, B, C, D, etc.
The defining element of censorship is the use of force to suppress material. While that's built into the very definition of the "intellectual property" concept, it's not like Seuss Enterprises sent cops with guns around to collect all extant copies of the books owned by other people. All they did was announce that they won't be publishing further copies of something that they own the "intellectual property" "rights" to.
That's not censorship. That's not in the ballpark of censorship. It's not in the same league as censorship. It's not even within a thousand miles of being the same sport as censorship.