
Banned by the Publisher - nkurz
http://www.nickcolebooks.com/2016/02/09/banned-by-the-publisher/
======
Someone1234
They're using "ban a book" to elicit a specific response here. Look; a
publisher has the right to publish or not any work they wish for any reason
they wish.

If the publisher had turned around and tried to stop the author from
publishing this themselves (via indie routes) or going to another publisher,
sure, I'd agree that that would be akin to trying to "ban" something.

But the reality is here that the publisher just opted out of publishing this
specific works, as is their right. Sorry, author, but you sound bitter. Move
on.

~~~
ricketycricket
The publisher absolutely has the right to not publish the book. It's also very
possible the author is being a bit unreasonable and bitter. We are only
getting one side of the story.

However, I read this more as a warning that there is a bias in the publishing
world and to not look at currently-published works in the aggregate as an
unbiased body of work.

------
scandox
I'm curious why the author's agent didn't just approach other mainstream
publishers with it. After all, if he's a critical and commercial success with
HarperCollins then it's very likely that someone, somewhere will take a
serious interest. Now I know that the publishing world has conglomerated a lot
in the last 20 years...but still there are other players.

edit: and editors at other imprints owned by the same group will often take a
different view.

------
Mtinie
This article gives us one passionate side of the situation. It would be nice
to be a fly on the wall during the lead up conversations between HarperCollins
and Mr. Cole's agent prior to the final decision being made.

Perhaps the story is as straight forward as Mr. Cole represented it; that
HarperCollins declined to publish the novel because of the nature of the AI
conflict described. Personally, it strikes me as oddly simplistic, and lacking
in other context, given the success that Mr. Cole's previous work brought the
publisher.

------
luketheobscure
Interesting how I felt total empathy for the author up until about 2/3 of the
way through, when I started to wonder if he was, perhaps, just a jerk.
Probably somewhere around when he started comparing his publisher to the
Nazis.

~~~
MCRed
He didn't compare the publisher to nazis. He talked about one of the essential
components that allowed the nazis to have power in germany.

The nazis existed. They were real.

I don't like the modern fad of holocaust revisionism that says "anyone who
talks about the nazis is ipso facto unable to make an argument (because the
nazis were not real and there is not possibility that there could be a valid
comparison between the conditions that allowed them to exist and conditions in
current society-- because the nazis weren't real.)"

------
amyjess
> In other words, they were attempting to effectively ban a book because they
> felt the ideas and concepts I was writing about were dangerous and more
> importantly, not in keeping with their philosophical ideals.

No, they were exercising their private property rights to publish only what
they want to publish.

~~~
erbo
Larry Correia says [1] that "ban" would not be the right word here, but what
they were doing was effectively _censoring_ his work. And the reason they did
so, in the instant case, was because of _politics._ Period.

[1] [http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/02/10/left-wing-bias-
in-...](http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/02/10/left-wing-bias-in-
publishing-your-wrongthink-will-be-punished/)

~~~
deong
To which I'd say, "And?"

The fact that you say something controversial doesn't change the relationship
between an author and a publisher from "I'll publish your book if I think it's
good and will sell" into "I'll publish your book absolutely because it makes a
political stand".

He's free to find another publisher, or as in this case, self-publish. This
seems about as clear a case of "move along, nothing to see here" as the
internet is capable of providing.

~~~
chc
You seem to be responding to a different situation than the one presented
here. At least according to the OP, this author wasn't taking a political
stand — it was just a small plot detail. They didn't even ask him to change
it. Somebody saw something they didn't like and attempted to punish the author
in the most severe way available to them. This is their right, of course, but
you have the right to do lots of lousy things, including burn books.

~~~
mikeash
They did ask him to change it. And the "punishment" was just to not publish
him. Hardly severe, given the large number of other publishers available, and
now the pretty good option of going without a publisher altogether.

"Publisher asks author to change book" hardly seems worthy of attention.

~~~
chc
According to the author, they had already killed the book before they even
sent him any notes. That seems to be the biggest part of what he found so
upsetting.

~~~
mikeash
The book was removed from the schedule, but I imagine it could have been
reinstated (reschedule?) if the requested changes had been made. Certainly a
dick move by the publisher if it went down like that, but the choice to change
the offending section seems to have been there.

------
mikeash
Next time I'm turned down for something, I should write a blog post
complaining about how I've been "banned."

What next, "banned from acting" when the author auditions for a commercial but
the producers pick someone else?

~~~
dh997
Controversy sells, also sadly evidenced by the 2016 US political process. :/

------
pkinsky
I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the
sense that it was not published as a direct result of government intervention.
But is this really a meaningful distinction?

The book was prevented from being published in approximately the same way a
book advocating communism would have been effectively banned from publication
in the 1950s (via whisper campaigns, implied or explicit threats of
blacklisting, etc).

edit: sometimes this is justifiable: for example, a book titled 'Hitler,
Stalin, Mao Zedong and Kim Jong Un: misunderstood heroes?' would probably also
be effectively banned via social pressure.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I see a few people pointing out that the book wasn't really banned, in the
> sense that it was not published as a direct result of government
> intervention. But is this really a meaningful distinction?

Yes, there is a meaningful distinction between a publisher deciding not to
publish a book, and a book being banned. While there may certainly be
conditions where private action is so powerful in a given marketplace it is
substantially equivalent to a government prohibition and raises the same
issues, this isn't one. There are other publishers, and there has never been a
time when self-publishing and bypassing major publishers -- especially for an
already successful writer -- is easier.

The fact that this whole complaint is actually a promotional piece for the
book, which is in fact being published through Amazon's direct publishing
offering, demonstrates exactly why the distinction between a publisher
choosing not to publish a book and the book actually being banned is a
meaningful -- night-and-day -- distinction.

> The book was prevented from being published

No, it was, in fact, _not_ prevented from being published. The first two
sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie
with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing."

~~~
pkinsky
>No, it was, in fact, not prevented from being published. The first two
sentences of the article are "I launched a book this week and I went Indie
with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing."

Prevented from being published via established channels, then. The analogy
still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish content considered
communist in photocopied zines.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Prevented from being published via established channels, then.

Kindle Direct Publishing has been around about as long as the Kindle (they
were, IIRC, announced at the same time), and is backed by the dominant online
book and ebook retailer. Its a pretty well-established channel.

> The analogy still holds, because in the 1950s you could still publish
> content considered communist in photocopied zines.

The analogy does not, even remotely, hold, because such photocopied zines
would not be available via major retail outlets, whereas Kindle Direct
Publishing is directly sponsored by the dominant retail outlet.

------
largehotcoffee
We're in a similar situation except with Amazon being the one banning our
books. I am the owner of FAKKU, an English publisher of erotic manga (Japanese
comics). Despite there being a category on Amazon for our specific material
and previously receiving approval to list our books behind an "Adults Only"
flag, our books have been banned.

If you're wondering what that looks like from the customer perspective, you
can see (or not see) our banned best sellers here:
[http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Erotica-
Manga/zgbs/...](http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Books-Erotica-
Manga/zgbs/books/7406072011)

~~~
dragonwriter
Actually, I think being blocked by a retail channel with the absolute
dominance Amazon has is a lot more significant than being turned down by a
publisher.

The former is a significant bar to reaching customers, the latter not so much.

------
mst
Having gone to the trouble of reading said first chapter ... wut. It's the "AI
sees a human do something that can be interpreted as callous, starts thinking,
decides maybe this is going to be a problem" trope (and, actually, as a firmly
pro-choice person I find that the human action in question being one I
wouldn't condemn actually _adds_ to the horror inherent to the trope).

The ranty and bitter tone of the author does him no favours, certainly, but
taking him off the publication list before contacting him, and for something
so (to my mind) frankly silly, quite understandably would feel like enough of
a kick in the teeth that irrational anger is pretty understandable.

------
joesmo
It's terrible but thinking Amazon is a haven from censorship is wrong. They
can and will close your account for any reason or no reason at all. If they
didn't agree with this idea, they'd kill the book, guaranteed.

------
parfe
Why is this blatant marketing allowed on HN?

This is the same ploy as the "banned" super bowl commercial scam. Submit
something obviously unacceptable and then cry foul when it gets refused hoping
to get views via the media attention.

~~~
paolomaffei
I agree that this sound like self-promoting, but calling that bit of the book
"obviously unacceptable"?

~~~
parfe
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0nkoJgDM8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0nkoJgDM8)

It's pretty simple. Get rejected, complain about how the man is holding you
down, and hope the free publicity rolls in. It's marketing.

------
anotherevan
Oh God. A publisher didn't like his work of fiction and perhaps acted
unprofessionally and he cries about free speech and concentration camps, all
in the same long winded paragraph. Cry me a river.

Free speech protects you from censorship from the government, not from a
private company that doesn't like your book and so chooses not to invest their
money and time in publishing it. Free speech does not mean other people have
to listen to you, take you seriously, or do what you want them to.

Free speech means you can throw your little tantrum in public and the
government cannot tell you to shut the fuck up. Rightly so, that is left to
society in general to do.

