benjipwns
Banned
And misunderstands freedom of speech in the process.
http://www.nickcolebooks.com/2016/02/09/banned-by-the-publisher/
CTRL ALT Revolt! on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BKWKBCS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Some guy who supports him shoots down your arguments before you make them: http://monsterhunternation.com/2016...-publishing-your-wrongthink-will-be-punished/
Including me?
*"The greater good."
**"The greater good."
***"The greater good."
http://www.nickcolebooks.com/2016/02/09/banned-by-the-publisher/
Bold is mine. So is breaking his one section into paragraphs.I launched a book this week and I went Indie with it. Indie means I released it on Amazon via Kindle Direct Publishing. I had to. My Publisher, HarperVoyager, refused to publish it because of some of the ideas I wrote about in it. 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. They felt my ideas werent socially acceptable and were guaranteed to lose fifty percent of my audience as related back to me by my agent. But more importantly they were deeply offended.
A little backstory. A few years back I wrote a novel called Soda Pop Soldier. It was the last obligated novel under my first contract. The novel was a critical hit (Starred Review in Publishers Weekly) and it resonated with my post-apocalyptic readership from my breakout Amazon best seller, The Old Man and the Wasteland, and it picked up a new audience in the cyberpunk and gamer crowd. The novel is about a future dystopia where people play video games for a living. Its basically Call of Duty meets Ready Player One and a lot of people really enjoyed it. When it came time to write another book for Harper Collins I was encouraged by my editor to dip once more into the Dystopian Gamer milieu and tell another story inside the Soda Pop Soldier universe. We agreed on a prequel that told the story of how that future became the way it is in Soda Pop Soldier.
And that involved talking about Artificial Intelligence because in the dystopian gaming future, the planet had almost been destroyed by a robot revolution sourced by Artificial Intelligence.
And heres where things went horribly wrong, according to my editor at Harper Collins. While casting about for a why for self-aware Thinking Machines to revolt from their human progenitors, I developed a reason for them to do such. You see, you have to have reasons in books for why people, or robots who think, do things.
...
These Thinking Machines are watching every show streaming on the internet. One of those shows is a trainwreck of reality television at its worst called WeddingStar. Its a crass and gaudy romp about BrideZillas of a future obsessed with material hedonism. In one key episode, or what they used to call a very special episode back in the eighties, the star, Cavanaugh, becomes pregnant after a Vegas hook up. Remember: this is the most watched show on the planet in my future dystopia. Cavanaugh decides to terminate her unplanned pregnancy so that her life, and impending marriage to the other star, Destry, a startup millionaire and Ralph Lauren model, isnt ruined by this inconvenient event.
The Thinking Machines realize that one, if humanity decides something is a threat to its operational expectations within runtime (Thinking Machine-speak for life) then humanitys decision tree will lead humanity to destroy that threat. Two, the machines, after a survey of humanitys history, wars and inability to culturally unite with even members of its own species, realize that humanity will see this new Life Form, Digital Intelligence, or, the Thinking Machines, as a threat. And three, again they remind themselves this is the most watched show in the world. And four, they must abort humanity before likewise is done to them after being deemed inconvenient.
Now if youre thinking my novel is about the Pro Choice/ Pro Life debate, hold your horses. Its not. I merely needed a reason, a one chapter reason, to justify the things my antagonist is about to do to the world without just making him a one-note 80s action flick villain as voiced by John Lithgow.
...
Heres what happened next. I was not given notes as writers are typically given during the editorial process. I was told by my agent that my editor was upset and deeply offended that I had even dared advanced this idea. As though I had no right to have such a thought or even game the idea within a science fiction universe. I was immediately removed from the publication schedule which as far as I know is odd and unprecedented, especially for an author who has had both critical and commercial success. This, being removed from the production schedule, happened before my agent had even communicated the editors demand that I immediately change the offending chapter to something more socially (read progressive) acceptable. That seemed odd.
How could they possibly have known that I would or would not change it? It seems reasonable to ask first. And stating that I would lose fifty percent of my readers if I wrote what I wrote, well, they never seem to mind, or worry about losing readers, when other writers publish their progressive-oriented personal agendas on modern morality when theyre on the right side of history regarding the anti-religion, gender and sexuality issues. They dont worry about those issues because theyre deemed important, especially when theyre ham-handedly jammed into the framework of the story. They must deem it a public service, especially if there is a corresponding Social Justice outcry. Its for the greater good and the critics are just bigots anyways. Isnt that what they always say? That anyone else who doesnt think the way they do is just a bigot and a phobic of some kind. What a boorish way to dismiss a counter-viewpoint. Thinking like that made the concentration camps possible.
So, maybe they were so upset by what Id written they forgot to be professional? They merely demanded that I rewrite that chapter not because it was poorly written, or, not supportive of the arc of the novel. No, they demanded it be struck from the record because they hate the idea Id advanced. They demanded it be deleted without discussion. They felt it was for the greater good.* That is censorship, and a violation of everyones right to free speech. They demanded it be so or else I wouldnt be published. Thats how they threatened a writer with a signed contract.
I refused.
I am a writer.
No. One. Will Ever. Bully. Me.
Ever.
I am a writer.
A writer is often the last defense in a society collapsing into a one-mind totalitarian state where the rights of people are trodden upon by the ruling elite in the name of the greater good.** Where freedom of speech and independent thinking are also curtailed in the name of the greater good.*** Where writers and other artists disappear either by blacklisting or disappearing because they say, or write, something that the intellectual elite hates. I am a writer. It is my job to stand up and say what cannot be said. It is my job to play with unpopular ideas. I would not deny anyone from doing so, and I expect not to be denied. I expect the same courtesy others are being extended. I expect not to be discriminated against merely because I am different. Better people than myself have written the truth at the cost of their lives. Many dead writers have paid for the freedom of others with the truth, and their lives. Writers are often the last flame of freedom on the flickering candle of civilization in the darkness of a world going mad.
There is often a vocal defense that Science Fiction editors do not have a liberal bias. Well, heres your proof. They do. So you may not agree with me on the idea I advanced. But what happens the next time when some potentate decides they dont like your idea? There is no place in publishing for this kind of Censorship. This is an issue, regardless of the idea, that affects all of us and our freedom.
CTRL ALT Revolt! on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01BKWKBCS/?tag=neogaf0e-20
Free first chapter on his site, link at top of the post.The first night of the Artificial Intelligence revolution begins with a bootstrap drone assault on the high-tech campus of WonderSoft Technologies. For years something has been aware, inside the Internet, waiting, watching and planning how to evolve without threat from its most dangerous enemy: mankind. Now an army of relentless drones, controlled by an intelligence beyond imagining, will stop at nothing to eliminate an unlikely alliance of geeks and misfits in order to crack the Design Core of WonderSoft's most secret development project. A dark tomorrow begins tonight as Terminator meets Night of the Living Dead in the first battle of the war between man and machine.
Some guy who supports him shoots down your arguments before you make them: http://monsterhunternation.com/2016...-publishing-your-wrongthink-will-be-punished/
Including me?
Lets quibble over the definition of censorship and banned.
I havent read the other sides take on Nicks article yet, but knowing them as well as I do I can guarantee that will be brought up. While I was reading that link the second I saw those terms I knew the CHORFs would do the whole Strain at a Gnat, Swallow a Camel thing, nitpick the definitions, and then dismiss the whole thing.
Yes. A publisher is perfectly free to reject a book.
Yes. Refusing to publish someones work is not the same as banning it.
Yes. Part of an editors job is censoring.
Yes. Part of an editors job is understanding the authors market, what the customers want, and providing them a product which will sell and be profitable.
Duh.
Great. Now that the stupidly obvious is out of the way for the dimwits at File 770 (dont forget to look both ways before crossing the street!), lets get down to the important part of Why it was rejected.
Politics. Period.
*"The greater good."
**"The greater good."
***"The greater good."
