Profanity-scrubbing app *profanity in link*

[Steerpike]

Chuck Wendig has a post about this here: Page not found « terribleminds: chuck wendig

I don't agree with Chuck. If you buy a copy of a book, you should be able to do whatever you want with your own personal copy. That includes electronic copies, so long as you're not doing anything illegal (like selling the work, pirating etc.). In the digital age, authors and publishers try to exert control they'd never have had over copies of books post-purchase. I don't like it.

Thoughts?

EDIT: looks like I can't link to the post because of profanity in the title

Head to Chuck's blog at terribleminds.com

 

[Caged Maiden]

the link is broken

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah. Ironically, because of profanity. You'll have to go to Chuck's site. It's his newest blog post.

 

[CupofJoe]

This is almost funny - if CleanReader weren't serious...
Their substitutions seem to be close to comical [and offensive - personally I know lots of very nice and not at all bitchy witches]
I kind of agree with Chuck.
If a hypothetical author writes in a way I feel is unappealing [not usually because of profanity for me] then I'm free to stop reading and not read anything more by them. I don't think I should be free to change the words they use to make it more palatable to my tastes.
If said mythical author writes a PG and a XXX version of the same tale, then I am free to choose which I want to read, but the author has chosen the words they want to use.
What worries me is that there is a market out there for this App.

 

[Steerpike]

I think the app is a stupid idea, and I'd never us it, but people who want to use it should be able to. For their own personal copy only. That's something you could always do with a physical book. You could shred it, read it backwards, cross-out every other word, or whatever. Silly, but you had the right to do it.

I found another post about this by Cory Doctorow, and I guess I line up with his viewpoint: I hate your censorship, but I'll defend to the death your right to censor - Boing Boing

 

[Jabrosky]

I don't care for most profanity filters, but then I swear all the time whenever my parents aren't within earshot. I notice some of them don't even filter out the few words that I do consider offensive. You know your filter's priorities are skewed when it cuts out the old f-word (rhymes with buck) but not the n-word (rhymes with trigger), like this old message board I used to frequent. But even then, many words only gain their hurtful power from the context. The term for female dog is conventionally used to address female jerks, but some morons out there seem to believe it's interchangeable for women as a whole (as is the word normally used as an adjective for breadth).

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

I'm not really sure what this guys problem is with the app. It all comes down to what is the difference between this app and a reader doing it to a hard copy.

That and I don't think that the way he portrays the agreement between author and reader is entirely accurate. to me the agreement is not one where the reader has to accept all content. It's that the author promises a pay-off and the reader gets that pay-off by reading the book. Swearing is not necessarily integral to that system. For example, if I write a book that promises to be a zombie apocalypse and then it veers off into an alien invasion I have broken my end of the contract. Swearing is just the gloss, perhaps important to character, but not important to the agreement.

 

[Trick]

All in all, if there are people who buy and read more books because of this app, I'm for it. I don't want or need to use it myself but I know a lot of people who are offended by profanity (meaning I have to watch my mouth around them, out of respect). I wrote a story for Iron Pen that had the f-word in it. I had a few family members read it because I wanted their take. My dad, who is an old fashioned man but curses plenty in certain company, was really upset that I used it in print. He said it had a permanence in writing that it doesn't in speech and that I shouldn't need to use it in my writing. That's his opinion and this app would serve his purposes well.

There are also instances where an adult might want their tween/teen relative to read a book but don't want to be the person who contributed to the young person's bad language. This app could be useful in that regard.

Again, I don't have any use for it myself, but as a tool for recommending good books to people offended by swearing, I see it as an opportunity to increase readership.

 

[Panda]

Jabrosky, you might like this article No Offense - Profanity is changing. For the better. It's about how our society is drifting away from finding sexual/religious words offensive and now cares more about words that insult minorities. I don't remember where I originally found the link to the article (might have even been on these forums), but I read this a few days ago and found it really reassuring. (speaking as someone who thinks it's absurd that so many people are afraid to say a four-letter word that means "to have sex," but see nothing wrong with terms that degrade entire groups of people.)

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm generally against any form of censorship, even if it's individual, as it is here.

There may be valid reasons an author chose a certain word, even a cuss word. Changing that word could change the meaning or feel of the sentence. It may no longer provide the author's intent.

If you believe in the fundamental idea:

Not a wasted word.

...and I do. Then I'd be against any word changes, in any fashion, and for any reason.

Would I go crazy and sue the application or rail against the user? No. You buy the copy, do whatever you wish as long as you're not distributing the altered form. However, I'd still be against it's use...quietly opposed.

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, I think the differences comes down to "personally opposed" versus "shouldn't be allowed." I don't think authors who feel like Wendig does would have much of a legal claim here, and I don't think they should have one. I don't like the app and wouldn't use it, and I'd encourage others not to do so. But if someone decides to use it, I think they should have the right to do so.

 

[ascanius]

I hate the idea, in the end it's no different than political correctness or voluntary passive cencorship. I mean if a govenment came out and decided to censor books for profanity everyone would be in an uproar about it. However we have no qualms about doing it to ourselves, I just don't get it. I think this harms the author more than it helps the reader simply because the reader is given a false impression, one that the reader imposes on the author involuntarily. It becomes to easy for the reader to believe that the author doesn't swear after they forget that the censor is turned on, ok thats kinda a guess but probably highly likely. That also leaves the whole problem about what exactly constitutes profanity, the word FCUK yeah ok, but what about words for the human body, who decides. Or words that depend on context, bitch is the common word used to describe a female dog with puppies. It becomes profane when used to insult someone.

 

[Jabrosky]

Yeah, I think the differences comes down to "personally opposed" versus "shouldn't be allowed." I don't think authors who feel like Wendig does would have much of a legal claim here, and I don't think they should have one. I don't like the app and wouldn't use it, and I'd encourage others not to do so. But if someone decides to use it, I think they should have the right to do so.

If someone really does want an app to filter out swear words from their own e-reading, I say more power to them. Read what you like. I didn't mean to give the impression that I was against swear filters ever being invented, only that I personally don't care for them. There are plenty of things out there I don't like but, since other people do like them, I'm willing to tolerate.

 

[Steerpike]

@ascanius - the reader doesn't really get a false impression. They purposefully scrub the book, so they're getting the impression they're seeking. They know that the author's original work will be modified as determined by the application's algorithm.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Ascanius,

The governmental comparison is not exactly the same as a person scrubbing out their own texts. Having the government scrub a text is more problematic since it is a form of imposed thought control and manipulation of the market place of ideals. A person doing so is them picking a product and manipulating it to fit their wants and needs. Is it the same product with these changes? Yes and no. But these changes are the purchaser's choice, which is just another way the market place of ideas operates.

 

[ascanius]

@ascanius - the reader doesn't really get a false impression. They purposefully scrub the book, so they're getting the impression they're seeking. They know that the author's original work will be modified as determined by the application's algorithm.

But thats it, they get the impression they're seeking, wich is a false impression.

Ascanius,

The governmental comparison is not exactly the same as a person scrubbing out their own texts. Having the government scrub a text is more problematic since it is a form of imposed thought control and manipulation of the market place of ideals. A person doing so is them picking a product and manipulating it to fit their wants and needs. Is it the same product with these changes? Yes and no. But these changes are the purchaser's choice, which is just another way the market place of ideas operates.

Think of it this way. If you were to go to Italy and go through every single museum because you know you have lots of money and nothing else to do. And lets say you have these special glasses that censor out all nudity, breasts, etc (by making it look like they have underwear on and blends seamlessly with the the work of art so you don't even notice). After about the first few works of art you forget about the censor and you don't actually know which peices are being censored. How can the viewer ever truely experience those works of art for what they are and what the artist intended for them to be. How can you cloth the Venus of Urbino http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Tiziano_-_Venere_di_Urbino_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg and keep the integrety of the piece but also the vision of the painter. Or what about Leda and the Swan http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Leda_-_after_Michelangelo_Buonarroti.jpg, I mean seriously how the hell do you censor that without completely changing everything about the piece. Or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Scuola_di_fontainebleau%2C_presunti_ritratti_di_gabrielle_d%27estr%C3%A9es_sua_sorella_la_duchessa_di_villars%2C_1594_ca._06.jpg, Barberini Faun, Apollo and Daphine by Bernini, and lets not forget the most famous sculpture the Davide by Michelangelo. How can censoring such works of art not pollute the work, not change it. You can go through every musium on the planet with the misguided idea that no one ever displayed nudity in art, You may know it's not true, but what you have seen surely gives the impression. You know, seeing is believing thing. Thus you the viewer don't have to think about the implications of showing the breast of the Modonna, or the political, social, implications of the painter of The room of Amore e Psyche, the banquet scene or http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Jupiter-and-olympia-1178.jpg, nor those about the buyer, friends and family and the people who lived in the time period. That painting alone has so much more going, allusions to greek and roman myth to name a few. Yet this is the Gonzaga Palazzo, Imagine such a painting in the living room of the president. It shows so much about the people who create these works of art. The david with briefs isn't the statue of David.... The sistine chapel with clothed people, or an unskinned Michelangelo? That is why it create a false impression, Because the view no longer sees what the artist intended but only what the view imposes on the artist. Also a government comparision is the same because in the end does it really matter if it is imposed censorship or voluntary? In the end it is censored. Side note A lot of statues and paintings were cesored. Some of those artests took risks against the standard, to willingly censor works of art renders those risks meangless. Frankly if a person is so fragile that they are offended by nudity or profanity then maybe they shouldn't be reading such works.

 

[Steerpike]

@ascanius - even if all of that's true, a person should have the right to do it.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

To that end Ascanius, what is not reading a book due to content anything but censorship in its greatest degree? Does a reader not deprive them of the value of the work more so by not reading it than by censoring it? Would not a person who had the chance but never saw those works of art because of nudity deprive themselves as surely as if they had on those glasses and never realized they took them off?

Essentially is not reading a book an even greater deprivation than merely editing a word here or there? I tend to think it is. Because while the version they are reading may be "watered down" that does not mean they are not receiving some benefit from it.

 

[ascanius]

@Steerpike. On that you are right, people have that right, should we give them means, no we should not, should we allow it, no.

To that end Ascanius, what is not reading a book due to content anything but censorship in its greatest degree? Does a reader not deprive them of the value of the work more so by not reading it than by censoring it? Would not a person who had the chance but never saw those works of art because of nudity deprive themselves as surely as if they had on those glasses and never realized they took them off?

Essentially is not reading a book an even greater deprivation than merely editing a word here or there? I tend to think it is. Because while the version they are reading may be "watered down" that does not mean they are not receiving some benefit from it.

No, I think they are equal, not reading it and censoring it are the same. The meaning, effort, risks, importance and all other intricities are lost, it matters little the manner in which they are lost be it not reading it or self censorship. How is not all importance lost by censoring Jupiter and Olympia http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Jupiter-and-olympia-1178.jpg or https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-FabB00wEi6g/UTRtqvXwz6I/AAAAAAAAA60/_Fj91LMLR8w/w1000-h795/882916_281034075361466_1783569940_o.jpg Tell me how meaning, political, historical etc, is not lost by censor these two works of art. Look at that last piece really good and tell me nothing is lost or how is the piece not changed by censorship.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think anyone is arguing that nothing may be lost, or that the reader may well have a poorer experience. But those aren't reasons to prohibit someone from using an app like this. It's the difference between "I don't like that" versus "let's make that illegal."