07/13/2007
American Publisher Demonstrates Ridiculous Censorship Standards
A German children's book in a series that is a bestseller in 13 countries around the world inspired the interest of an American publisher but was rejected by Boyds Mills Press after the author refused to censor this illustration of a tiny sculpture in a museum. Spiegel reports:
"As it turned out, there were a couple of changes that had to be made before the books could be unleashed on the America public. First off, smokers had to be removed from the illustrations. But that wasn't all. One image shows a scene from an art gallery -- and for realism's sake, there is a cartoonish nude hanging on the wall along with a tiny, seven-millimeter-tall statue of a naked man on a pedestal. American kiddies, obviously, could never be expected to handle such a depiction of the human body. The US publisher, somewhat awkwardly, asked if they could be removed. The author, not surprisingly, considers the request to be absurd. The statue's mini-willy, the author points out, is hardly even a half-millimeter long. And the naked woman hanging on the wall? Hardly a realistic depiction of the female anatomy. The US publisher, says Berner, was embarrassed to ask for the changes, but they were even more afraid of how American mommies and daddies might react if junior were exposed to such pornography."
And that detail is part of a larger illustration, which I've posted after the jump.
And the 'filthy' nude is pictured below. Dangerous, eh?
Posted 5:30 PM EST by Andy in Books, Censorship, News | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
i can't say that i'm too surprised by the reaction/request of the publisher.
to think what balls publishers in the earler part of the 20th century had to publish such (written) works as Lady Chatterly's Lover, Naked Lunch, Howl, Tropic of Cancer, etc...the list is quite long.
not to make a big deal out it, but shame on this cowed press and the american publishing industry in general for being so (self)censorious.
i guess they think kids never see each other naked or their brothers and sisters and cousins, etc, etc.
what world do these adults live in? and why are americans so deathly afraid of someone's "possible" reaction?
it's all beyond absurd since there's nothing there that's the least bit prurient or pornographic....oh, i forgot we have a right wing remote-controlled and self-censored Culture
Posted by: michael72 | Jul 13, 2007 5:55:10 PM
omg.. what it happening in this country ?!
please tell me that the pendulum will start swinging in the other direction .. soon.
Posted by: el polacko | Jul 13, 2007 5:55:21 PM
...but if it was cartoons of machine guns or someone being blown to pieces, that would have been fine.
I am beginning to wonder when we send in the armed forces from Europe to liberate the Americans from their oppressive tyranical government?
Posted by: Christiaan Kidd | Jul 13, 2007 6:15:17 PM
So two illustrations, hardly pornographic, cause this level of concern? I have to police EVERY VIDEO GAME that my kids want just make sure it is age appropriate! If this book were all I had to worry about I would be so lucky.
The threat of violence in music and video games are far more destructive to the youth of this country than this book! Wake up America...something has gone terribly wrong with our society!!!!!
Posted by: RB | Jul 13, 2007 6:40:04 PM
in America you can kill but you can't have sex.
Posted by: A.J. | Jul 13, 2007 7:15:07 PM
Christiaan Kidd, it is not our government that is at fault here. Nor is it oppressive and tyrannical, despite what many may say. That said, it is our Puritanical society that is the cause of this problem. The United States has always been this way, back to the Pilgrims through the Victorian era and into the 21st century. And yes, it is completely hypocritical of us to be this way, considering the HUGE sex industry in this country. The reasons are many for this Puritanicalism, but it really boils down to the negative affects religion can have on a society. I'm not anti-religious, in fact I'm a true libertarian, in that you can believe what you want, just don't tell me what to believe. Or look at in a book, or on TV, or in the movies. Sadly, many Americans do not share this position and are polarized by their adherance to outdated and over-zealous religious heads and figures.
Posted by: Kamasutra Jones | Jul 13, 2007 7:51:00 PM
If genitals (and breasts) are so terrible why did god invent them?
Posted by: John C | Jul 13, 2007 8:43:24 PM
RB, my thoughts EXACTLY!!
Good to see you're still around bubba!
Posted by: Zeke | Jul 13, 2007 9:23:51 PM
I work as a Book Buyer for a national entertainment retail chain and I've never heard of Boyds Mills Press in my life. While I understand the ridiculousness of BMP refusing to print the book over a millimeter-long doodle of a dick, in the end, it's their press, their business, and their publishing dollars that they're spending to print the book. If they don't want something in it, then they're under no moral obligation to have to print it. There are dozens of other, better-known and most-likely, more widely-distributed publishers out there that would print the book with no qualms whatsoever.
Posted by: Joe Totale | Jul 13, 2007 9:44:52 PM
This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. The publishers do realize that if children went to an actual museum or saw, oh, let's say - the Sistine Chapel!!! - they would see far more realistic representations of genitalia... right?
Are children banned from the Vatican because of the "pornography"?
Posted by: Gregg | Jul 13, 2007 9:45:41 PM
This is a simple business decision that they could not sell as many books with the images remaining, nor face the onslaught of negative publicity to make it worthwhile. They obviously know their audience and are not going to be able to force this book on them, nor change their book-buying tastes, so why are they being criticized? The pendulum is hardly swinging back towards modesty in this country, just look at cable TV. Nor is this a conservative only issue, as there are many restrictions in liberal presses as to what can be said or shown, often bordering on the absurd.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Jul 13, 2007 10:54:11 PM
Sometimes I just don't get America (yes, I'm generalizing, I know). Nobody in Germany would ever raise an eyebrow at this...
Posted by: Vanessa | Jul 14, 2007 9:11:40 AM
Repressive, repulsive. It's a big reason why European men, at least for me, are so much more interesting sexually. In our cultural upbringing in the USA, we have been incredibly fucked up psychosexually. Too much baggage. When will we get beyond Salem, and learn to love humankind -- warts and all -- in all of its shapes and sizes --rather than destroy it?
Posted by: Richard | Jul 14, 2007 11:59:58 AM
When howls of protests went forth over a Calvin Klein ad, in which boys were shown with a slight bulge in their jockey shorts, the hapless do-gooders got the ad pulled, stating the ads showed the boys' penises. It was a while back; I think it might have been a billboard in New York. My response to their protest: I went to Macy's and bought a new supply of Calvin Klein underwear and jeans. Screw the bastards who try to dictate right and wrong; and screw them harder when they deny a fact of nature, such as the realization that boys do have a penis.
Posted by: Dick Carol | Jul 14, 2007 12:11:09 PM
It looks like Boyds Mills Press was rolled out in 1990 - brought to you by the publishers of the doctor's office favorite: Highlights.
That little publication is one of the creepiest things ever to me. Yet, I would flip through it as a kid staring blankly at the oddly-repulsive images and absorbing the bland vibe.
Posted by: Rey | Jul 14, 2007 2:13:02 PM
This anti-smoking censorship is outrageous. Smokers are a persecuted minority in this country, coming under constant assault from liberal anti-smoking facists; STILL, smoking is still perfectly legal in this country once you reach a certain age; and one day the kids reading it will have the FREE WILL to make that consumer choice. To have images of smoking censored from this book is a travesty.
I'm glad to see so many other in this comment section, with me 100% in being opposed to the blatant censorship in this case.
Posted by: anon | Jul 14, 2007 2:25:17 PM
Americans are prudes, basically. Sadly.
I, too, prefer a more European attitude to sex and personal freedom.
Too many Puritains here!!
Posted by: Jonathon | Jul 14, 2007 7:04:04 PM
That's just so sad. And this old lady seems so happy watching the statue. We just don't get you Americans, though we like you nevertheless :))
Posted by: delb | Jul 15, 2007 8:36:55 AM
Agree with DELB. Americans, we love ya, but your Puritanism has screwed up everything from your morals to your Foreign policy.
When half a YEAR of news coverage (not entertainment section, but news) was devoted to Janet Jackson's left nipple, you as a country totally jumped the shark.
As Jon Stewart said (re gay marriage), "When SOUTH AFRICA is more progressive than us, we're in trouble"...
PS> Come to Quebec. Boobies and dicks on movie posters and the strippers can take off everything.
Posted by: Strepsi | Jul 15, 2007 7:24:13 PM
STREPSI, don't give them any ideas, soon they'll invade Canada... and what is sad about that sentence is that it's not a joke completely.
Americans, you scare me.
Posted by: kode | Jul 16, 2007 2:00:32 PM