Open Letter to Kathleen Hiserodt Regarding LFB's decision not to carry 'The Black Arrow'
May 7, 2005
2:51 p.m., MT

Dear Kathleen,

I am posting this open letter on my blog, and invite you to make a public response (in addition to any you might make to me via email) there, by leaving a comment.

I received the following from Vin Suprynowicz:

We have decided not to carry THE BLACK ARROW. While we are confident that we could sell some and that we will have customers looking for it, we are concerned about offending our customers with what we see as the gratuitous vulgar sexual content. I couldn't see any good reason for including it, and I think it makes the book inappropriate for a significant segment of our market. There was much to recommend the novel, but I feel the sexual content destroyed the book's potential value.

Thanks,
Kathleen

------------------
Kathleen Hiserodt
Laissez Faire Books
7123 Interstate 30, Suite 42
Little Rock, AR 72209
501-975-3650

While I'm disappointed that you have chosen not to carry my friend's book, in part because I hoped to profit from LFB sales as an affiliate at Sunni's Salon, I understand you have business decisions to make. That said, I find the reasoning behind your business decision in this case very disturbing.

When did Laissez Faire Books take on the role of being its customers' parents? When did LFB become concerned about possibly offending someone -- and why has this become more important than its mission of selling pro-freedom books and videos? The Black Arrow is one of the most powerful pro-freedom novels I have ever read; and its message is crucially important right now, as what Vin depicted in fiction is inching closer to reality every day. Surely the value of that message outweighs some possible offense that might be taken by some at some of the themes Vin explores.

Let's look closely at what you're describing as "gratuitous vulgar sexual content". Vin explores the enjoyment of sexual relations in a loving relationship, with the aim of having and raising a family. He does an excellent job, in my opinion, of portraying how real people love and lust and dream. It's especially worthwhile to consider those goals and dreams in the context of being a freedom activist in these challenging times; and as one I greatly appreciated him vivifying much of my personal experience before becoming a mother. Compared with the likes of what's on television and in movies today, and what many of your customers lived through in the 60s and 70s, Vin's perspective is almost a pure blast from the 1950s. In fact, the only comment on this subject I'm aware of from a reviewer was that the sex-for-procreation angle was jarring, since sex-as-recreation has become the norm for millions across a wide age range. Last, I'm flabbergasted that you view Vin's portrayals as vulgar -- although it's true that some turns of phrase are quite colorful, they're not debasing or overly graphic. Much of the sexual content is actually left to the reader's mind to fill in.

Reasonable individuals can differ over appropriate and inappropriate depictions of potentially sensitive information. I appreciate that your sensitivities are quite different from mine -- and apparently, from the great majority of The Black Arrow's reviewers, and the readers I've heard from. However, I cannot attribute to "reasonable differences" putting personal preferences ahead of the Laissez Faire Books mission, which is "offer[ing] the world's best selection of books and tapes on liberty." Another page on the LFB site explains the phrase "laissez faire" thusly: "Today the term laissez faire has come to mean: leave the people alone, let them be, in their economic activities, in their religious affairs, in thought and culture, in the pursuit of fulfillment in their own lives." The reason given for your decision not to stock The Black Arrow flies in the face of these statements, and is very disappointing to see from LFB.

I therefore ask you to reconsider your decision not to carry The Black Arrow. Its omission from the LFB catalog is contrary to your mission; and the reason behind that decision is not in keeping with the name and legacy of Laissez Faire Books. If LFB continues to fail its customers, Sunni's Salon and Endervidualism will sever our business relationship with LFB, and encourage others to follow suit.

Sincerely,

Sunni Maravillosa

Sunni

Replies: 64 people have spoken!

On Saturday, May 7th, Tom Ender said:

Vin's writing is fairly "soft-core." Calling it that is even a stretch. I am someone who enjoys Nina Hartley's past movie endeavors. (I haven't seen any of her newer work. She's just a better known example of a star from that part of my movie collection.) I also like her writing (which Ender's Review has linked to at Counterpunch).

For a supposedly libertarian organization, I find LFB's action on The Black Arrow reprehensible. When will they drop Ayn Rand's novels for similar reasons? If not, why not?

Dropping any future LFB links at Endervidualism like a hot rock seems the right thing to do. If they reconsider their action on The Black Arrow, maybe I will on having new LFB links.

On Saturday, May 7th, Monika said:

Heck,
now I want to buy the book more than ever!

And what a completely weird change of attitude of Ms. Hiserodt.

On Saturday, May 7th, Endervidual said:

Hi Monika,

This is where I bought my copies, both leather and paperback. Vin probably does best on those purchases. Of course, Amazon also has it. (Endervidualism/Sunni's Salon will get a referall on that link).

On Saturday, May 7th, Cat said:

Et tu, LFB?

Since when did "gratuitous sexual content" spoil an adult novel? I can see why it might not be appropriate for children but I thought that was the whole point of reaching adulthood... even if I recall the sex scenes in books as particularly entertaining when I was a kid. Trouble ensued, but that's another story.

What Monika said... I want to buy the book more than ever too. Parental class dismissed for the sake of adults... it seems better to outgrow childish things rather than allow them to become ingrown.

On Saturday, May 7th, Kathleen Hiserodt said:

I am shocked at how completely Sunni misunderstood my position. It is taking on the role of our customer's parents to make judgments about what we consider to be "world's best selection of books and tapes on liberty "? I really don't think so. Are we acting as their parents when we don't carry Bill Clinton's autobiography? Or books by many other authors who offer books with information or points of view that we don't see as a clear value to our readers? That doesn't mean that all those books are a worthless waste of time, but we are careful not to carry books that we are uncomfortable endorsing in a general sense.

If LFB readers aren't looking for someone to pre-select books based on their value to the pro-freedom movement, they know how to look to other general booksellers. They come to LFB primarily because they have confidence that the books we offer have a consistently pro-freedom message.

And our mission is much more than to sell pro-freedom books and videos. There are many, many books that have some pro-freedom aspects to them. Many of them have counterbalancing negative aspects that keeps them out of our selection. I am glad you found "The Black Arrow" inspiring. Perhaps many others will as well. I would expect there are others, including myself, that find it offensive to have gratuitous vulgar sexual content thrown at them when they are expecting a novel about freedom. And I do believe our readers have such expectations in the fiction we carry. It is not a book I could recommend to anyone, despite many positive aspects of the book.

By the way, the sexual content that I found offensive had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or pro-creation. It was completely centered around slavery, extortion, and degradation. I think it made what could have been a good introduction to the freedom philosophy inappropriate for younger readers, as well as distasteful to many readers of all ages. Yes, LFB could carry it and issue explicit warnings about the content. We seriously considered doing just that. On the other hand, we have many other books that we can endorse wholeheartedly. Why is this book so important or unique that it is worth spending extra space (taken away from other books we could offer or describe in greater detail) to warn people that this book might be something they don't really want? I can indeed imagine a book that would offer something special enough to make it worth offering such a warning. But, in my opinion, this book is not it. I respect your right to disagree.

I'm sorry if you feel this is cause to sever your association with Laissez Faire Books. We have certainly failed to carry other books you appeared to consider worthy, sometimes for similar reasons, other times for reasons of practicality. I don't really see why this is different.

I can assure you that LFB has carried many books that have offended some of our customers. We are not afraid of offending people, but for good reason, in order to provide them with a perspective or information that could be important to their lives. If I thought "The Black Arrow" were such a book, LFB would be carrying it. If I were given free reign to edit the book (I wasn't asked), I do think there is a book in there that LFB would love to carry. But as it exists, I feel it does not offer an overall value.

On Saturday, May 7th, Thomas L. Knapp said:

Quoth Kathleen:

"By the way, the sexual content that I found offensive had absolutely nothing to do with freedom or pro-creation. It was completely centered around slavery, extortion, and degradation."

Hey, LFB is entitled to carry, or not carry, what it wants to carry, or not carry. But the above is, pardon my French, bullshit.

In case you didn't notice, the scenes of slavery, extortion and degradation involved the bad guys ... unlike, say, the rape scene in The Fountainhead or the quasi-rape scenes in Atlas Shrugged.

"Why is this book so important or unique that it is worth spending extra space (taken away from other books we could offer or describe in greater detail) to warn people that this book might be something they don't really want?"

Oh, I don't know ... perhaps the fact that it's easily the best libertarian novel of the last five years or so?

Tom Knapp

On Saturday, May 7th, William's Dad said:

Wow... the sex scenes are what got her... I would have thought the cleaving people in half would have been a bit more troubling.
A very good book, thanks Vin!
My wife, also, throughly enjoyed it.
I'm half expecting congressional hearings about the revolutionary content.
I'm glad I got my signed edition.

On Saturday, May 7th, J. E. Andreasen said:

Perhaps some folks are queasy about portraying evil in a visceral and effective way. After all, doing so might motivate actual resistance rather than the academic masturbation the movement has been famous for during tha past thirty years.

On Saturday, May 7th, Tom Ender said:

Hey Tom,

Speak more French, I hear it bothers some people.

I remember how Gomez Addams reacted to Morticia's French, but perhaps that would be too low brow ("vulgar", gratuitous and maybe even shocking for some people.

I think looking at the distinguishing features of vendors in the market is a big part of what makes a market work for both the producer (Vin) and consumer (me, among others).

Perhaps, this sort of pettiness (or worse) is why others have chosen to not partner with LFB.

With the Bush regime's actions and policies as background, maybe Morticia Addams will soon again be too much. However, the way to keep freedom is to use it, not to give in to those who would take it.

On Saturday, May 7th, Cat said:

Strange to think that a mature freedom-loving audience requires books with a PG rating... a sign of the times?

I've come to think that "we" may not be a bad way to embrace or include other people, but that "we" in the sense of segregation from "them" feels entirely different.

Perhaps I'll rethink my position on a hardcover edition of "Black Arrow," and think of it in terms of must-have now...

On Saturday, May 7th, Kathleen Hiserodt said:

It should be remembered that we're not trying to enjoin publication of this book. We've simply exercised our right not to carry it. I fully support your right to buy the book elsewhere.

And yes, I did realize that the sexual content I found offensive involved "bad guys." I think it would have been sufficient to let us know what kind of slimy activities the bad guy was up to and spare the reader the gory details. Just because I believe people should be free to write books full of whatever sexual content they want doesn't mean that I think it improves the quality of a novel.

Many people would say that some of Ann Coulter's books have a pro-freedom message, but we don't carry those either because, on balance, they offer more negative than positive in my view.

On Saturday, May 7th, Col. Hogan said:

Well, I'm in the process of reading The Black Arrow for the second time, having found it both entertaining and inspirational the first time.

The "gratuitous vulgar sexual content" to which Ms Hiserodt refers is obviously a tool to increase our loathing for the statists' tactics. Statists even in recent knowledge, have performed all these evil acts and much worse. If anything, I find Suprynowics' fine novel somewhat subdued--to spare the tender sensibilities of some--compared to the many more vile crimes perpetrated by many of our recent historical dictatorships, documented on such uncontraversial media outlets as The History Channel.

I've yet to figure out why some have come to the conclusion that the art world has to become a "nerf" world in order to never offend the tender sensibilities of (faux swoon here) the children.
I'm not worried about "the children." Let their parents worry about them.

Ms Hiserodt, I'm not going to boycott LFB, or otherwise alter my plans, except that I may find myself shopping a mite more selectively, in the future.

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

Kathleen, the differing portrayals of sexual relationships are there to highlight the moral differences between the likes of Daniel Brackley and Fletcher. Ugly, yes ... but rooted in reality. I would much rather my young children learn these distinctions before they need to exercise that judgment than grow up thinking all sexual activity is just juicy friction. TBA offers a good means to starting that kind of conversation with one's children, as well as for adults to think about in the context of their values and choices.

And, frankly, the "negative" over "positive" casting seems silly. You carry books that have a much more negative tone -- Bovard rips on every administration he writes about. Mencken's tone isn't exactly upbeat all the time ... and so on. (Your Clinton and Coulter examples are diversions -- neither of them has anything of value to add to the freedom community. TBA definitely does.)

Kathleen, this issue isn't about my trying to foist my personal standards upon your business. It is, for me, about two things:
1] You appear to be foisting your personal standards upon the business, and by extension, upon your customers. (I believe others have commented on the continued inclusion of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in the LFB catalog ... interesting choices, given the arguments against TBA.) If that's the case, that's contra to LFB's mission, and is very disturbing to me; and
2] This choice seems to reflect a shifting standard at LFB toward staying in "safer" grounds. Dry, theoretical tomes can be found in abundance in your catalog, but with few exceptions, books that have a strong, visceral impact (especially fiction) are notably absent. Why? Are emotions that scary now? When will the Soma come pre-packaged with the few hard-hitting novels LFB carries?

Again, you're the head of the company and it's your job to set and maintain a standard. But in my opinion, that standard has strayed so far from LFB's mission that the company is more like any independent bookseller, rather than the pro-freedom stalwart it once was. That's sad to see ... and a direction I can't support.

On Sunday, May 8th, Keith Perkins said:

This is one of the very reasons I stopped buying from LFB many years ago--their arbitrary inclusion/exclusion of books.
Sorry but it's true.
I haven't read Black arrow yet, but, maybe I'll have to order it from somewhere now.
I, also, think that it's very disingenous of Kathleen to bring up books by Bill Clinton, and Ann Coulter, since we all know that these books have nothing to offer libertarians/freedom lovers.

On Sunday, May 8th, Kathleen Hiserodt said:

I think Sunni's previous comment makes clear that she has a very strange understanding of what a free market is about. I am foistitng my personal standards on my business? In a free market, that's the way it is SUPPOSED to be, isn't it? And by extension, I am foisting them on my customers? Not if this is a free market, where they have the freedom to patronize or not patronize any business.

I personally have problems with "Atlas" and "Fountainhead" re: the issue referred to. But they were already in our selection when I came onto the scene. And there's no question (in my mind) that they both are books that have brought scores of people to pro-freedom thinking. In hindsight, there's no question that their good outweighed the bad.

I also understand why the ugly images are there (at least I think I do). Many people do not need that kind of offensiveness to get the point being made, and I see no reason to put it in the faces of those people. We carry virtually no books that are not appropriate for a general audience.

You mention Jim Bovard's books. You call that "safer ground"? We don't carry more fiction than we do because our readers are WAY less interested in it.

The decision not to carry "The Black Arrow" is not evidence of any change in direction at LFB. I simply prefer not to carry books that require long explanations that we are recommending them only with various caveats, and I believe this book would require them.

On Sunday, May 8th, Mary Lou Seymour said:

When I first read Kathleen's comment (which Vin forwarded to me) I thought it must be a joke ... the sex scenes in Black arrow are clearly the opposite of "gratutitous", they exist exactly in order to flesh out the characters (the bad guys AND the good guys) and further the plot. As for "vulgar" ... gee whiz, these are actually pretty "mild" sex scenes (with a lot left to the reader's imagination, which is my own personal prference, and, I believe, the mark of a good writer) ... I can only assume that Kathleen doesn't read many mainstream novels, if she thinks this is "vulgar sex"...

Obviously, LFB has the right to carry whatever books it wishes to, but this just seems like such a farcial reason to NOT carry Black Arrow ... I still was not convinced it wasn't a joke ... but reading Kathleen's comments here, I guess it was "for real".

Kathleen says "We don't carry more fiction than we do because our readers are WAY less interested in it." Well, most "libertarian" fiction (with the exception of sci-fi) I've read has been wooden, and lifeless No wonder people :"arent interested".. Vin's book is neither. I'm a fiction reader, myself and Black Arrow is a dang good read, with fully fleshed out characters and plot, good dialogue that rings true ... the "sex scenes" are a PART of what makes it so successful. I keep coming back to thinking "well, maybe this Kathleen lady just doesn't read fiction and expects everything to be in a dry philosophical tome" ... in which case, perhaps they need a fiction reader to preview the book selections for LFB?

On Sunday, May 8th, J. E. Andreasen said:

Sunni & Mary Lou,

Please avoid terms like "juicy friction", "wooden", & "fleshed out". The folks at CATO will spend most of next week running around D.C. apologising for it. Then Kathleen will be forced to carry three more books on Say's Law and Price Theory in Togo. Damn, Vin... See what you started.

On Sunday, May 8th, Herself said:

Goodness, gracious me!

--Item: a retailer carries what he or she chooses to sell, period. The means by which the choice is made are not, in fact, the business of third parties. If Ms. Hiserodt made a mistake here, it was in offering an explanation.

-- Item: I happen to enjoy a certain amount of "gratuitious sex" in my reading. That doesn't keep me from, say, being a bit bemused that nearly all of Henry Bowman's female contacts his own age are strippers -- but I do undestand that (to quote a fellow) " Any point of view that fails to assume -- and to accept -- that males and females will inevitably perceive one another as 'sex objects' is simply deranged." (L. Neil Smith, in "Tactical Reflections," q.v.)

If LFB happns to be selling a book I want, at a price I like, I will buy it from them. But I shan't look too them for anything that's not a "G" rating -- and that leaves out a lot of good reading!

--Herself

On Sunday, May 8th, charley said:

i disagree somewhat with sunni, but not with her conclusion that LFB is betraying the creed it chose. i believe the responses by kathleen hiserodt are dishonest to the core (perhaps most notably the serious but laughably illogical mentions of clinton and coulter).

it won't affect them much (if at all), but seeing kathleen hiserodt at work here, there's no way i'd buy from LFB again. the attempt to hide puritanism behind "free market" talk and an aura of momentous "business decision-making" with liberty at the forefront is sickening; call it 100% personal bias and accept the fallout, for crying out loud. apart from "unintended consequences" (apparently not carried by LFB either), i can't think of another book purported to address so clearly the physical conflicts awaiting those who believe in liberty with their lives. they both are criticized for "gratuitous" sex, but not often for lack of strength for liberty.

contrary to implication, this thread is the free market working. criticism and decisions by the liberty-minded aren't limited strictly to NAP. kathleen attempts to embrace that truth for herself while criticizing others who do also. ridiculous. i haven't read the black arrow, and i'm not going to. if i had a bookstore, i wouldn't carry it either. here's why. and here's why i won't be buying from, linking to, or recommending LFB.

neat how that works, huh? LFB: niche bookstore for liberty community prudes.

i buy almost all of my books used at half.com now. if you prefer new, i recommend alldirect.com.

On Sunday, May 8th, putrimalu said:

Thanks for the warning about this book. Graphic sexual content from the pen of Vin Suprynowicz? Disturbing, to say the least

Anyway. This open letter is a good illustration of why the liberty movement is so fragmented.

No one is ever going to be able to be %100. Everyone, EVERYONE is going to have a thought or a value that someone else in the liberty movement can attack. Or in this case, a business decision they don't agree with. And you're gonna "sever your business relationship" over this? If all liberty-lovers took this attitude, the liberty community would quickly fall apart. You are a leader in the liberty community! What kind of example are you setting?

Kathleen is the one running the store. She knows how she wants HER business to be run. Why all the fuss? This book can be purchased elsewhere quite easily. This silly criticism will serve no purpose other than to alienate her, and to financially hurt a liberty-owned, liberty-spreading business.

On that topic, I don't know how many visitors you drive to LFB in the first place, but to threaten to sever your business relationship with LFB? That'd be like me saying I won't read your page anymore if you don't include a link to a page I like. It's just silly!

Plus, seriously, aren't there better things to be worrying about?

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

Kathleen wrote: "I am foistitng [sic] my personal standards on my business? In a free market, that's the way it is SUPPOSED to be, isn't it?"

My comments were intended to highlight a distinction between decisions made in the best interest of the business -- which is serving its customers -- and ones made for personal reasons, which may or may not advance a business' interests. In my view a free market isn't "supposed" to operate any particular way -- an entrepreneur would be free to set up and operate a business however he wanted. If he doesn't ultimately serve his customers, though, he'll fail.

As I've said repeatedly, Kathleen, you're the head of LFB and the one calling the shots; I have no problem with that. I do think it's a bad business decision, however, to publicly proclaim a standard and fail to uphold it. It appears that your personal distaste for sexual content in books -- which you admit carries over to Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, I see -- has led to that situation at LFB. I'm simply: 1] pointing out what I've observed regarding your reason for not carrying a clearly pro-freedom book; 2] stating that as a customer, I'm not interested in supporting your decision-making practices as demonstrated in this case; and 3] asking others in the marketplace to inform themselves and align their choices as they want.

On Sunday, May 8th, Pagan said:

On 4/28/05, Wally Conger wrote:
So here’s where I see the line drawn in today’s libertarian movement:

Conservatives — the Libertarian Party, the recent Neolibertarian splinter (it hasn’t yet distinguished itself as a movement), Reason and Liberty magazines, Laissez-Faire Books (to a large degree), and “libertarian” Bush sympathizers like talk radio’s Neal Boortz and CNBC’s Dennis Miller.

Radicals — The Mises Institute, LewRockwell.com, "Rob" and Strike-The-Root.com, the Antiwar.com coalition, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, and a growing number of writers and bloggers like B.K. Marcus, Claire Wolfe, Wendy McElroy, Tom Knapp, Karen De Coster, Anthony Gregory, and Roderick T. Long.

I guess he was right about LFB -- to a LA-A-RGE degree. It sounds like Conservative to me.

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

putrimalu wrote: "You are a leader in the liberty community! What kind of example are you setting?"

If I am a leader (a highly debatable point, but irrelevant), it's unwitting and unwanted. And as to the example I'm setting, I think it's a good one. I saw something I perceived as a problem, made a decision about my personal course of action, and have shared my information and conclusions in a public venue so that others can make use of it and act in the marketplace.

On Sunday, May 8th, Tom Ender said:

Charley's comments are quite insightful. I think Sunni's interview with Vin and Scott had some very relevant material to the topic here, too.

The entire interview is interesting but especially beginning on page 4 with the conversation about Dan Brackley it seems to become very relevant to this discussion.

Kathleen has made a decision. She has been asked to reconsider her decision by those who have been affiliated with her business.

We all have the power to make decisions. That is the market at work: dispersed individual decision making, or as Gandalf put it in a slightly different context: "All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."

On Sunday, May 8th, charley said:

re putrimalu's rodney king experiment ("If all liberty-lovers took this attitude, the liberty community would quickly fall apart.", let the "liberty community" fall apart. we don't need one. we need more people valuing the sanctity of the individual, not a sing-along.

the problem of liberty in the US and the world is a lack of people thinking individually. that's not going to be changed by pretending you've banded together enough individual thinkers to convert people born to slavery. if anything sunni or kathleen does divides in someone's mind the "liberty community", it wasn't much of a mind. worrying over schisms among the liberty minded is confusion. i'm much more worried when liberty lovers organize and imitate what they should seek to destroy. the internet is enough organization for real liberty.

On Sunday, May 8th, putrimalu said:

Charley said: let the "liberty community" fall apart. we don't need one.

Speak for yourself. I would like one.

we need more people valuing the sanctity of the individual, not a sing-along.

Sing-along? No one is saying that. You are trying to make what I said seem absurd by putting words in my mouth. Kindly stop it.

worrying over schisms among the liberty minded

I'm not worrying too much about these schisms. To be honest, this is only the 2nd or 3rd time I've ever even visited this site. LFB will continue to exist after this blog goes away.

But I do worry when people who allege to stand up for personal choice and inviduality attack others for not toeing the party line, in this case, carrying Vin's book. You mention "imitating what they should seek to destroy"?, when this is exactly what is happening with Sunni threatening to blacklist LFB. Recently, a church kicked out a bunch of people who didn't vote for Bush. That is what this reminds me of.

i'm much more worried when liberty lovers organize and imitate what they should seek to destroy.

How is this happening? What is wrong with organization? Who is imitating whom?

the internet is enough organization for real liberty.

Again, speak for yourself. Their exists a world outside the internet. Liberty online may be enough for you, but I want more.

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

I'm not threatening to blacklist LFB, nor demanding they carry the book; I'm asking them to reconsider what I, and apparently many others, from what I've been reading elsewhere, consider a poorly-made decision.

I understand Charley to be saying that we needn't all be of one mind in pursuit of liberty. We can't be, since we see different things in our visions and means for attaining it. I agree with him.

Please keep comments on-topic and civil, or you'll be banned from further contributions to the conversation.

On Sunday, May 8th, putrimalu said:

I understand Charley to be saying that we needn't all be of one mind in pursuit of liberty.

That's exactly what I said, but in threatening LFB, that's NOT what you are doing. The "one mind" in this case being "carrying The Black Arrow".

Please keep comments on-topic and civil, or you'll be banned from further contributions to the conversation.

My comments were on-topic and civil. Your threat to ban my apparently unpopular view was unnecessary, but it sure is eye-opening. You try to to blacklist LFB unless they carry a book you like, and you threaten to BAN me for some imagined breach of civility. Not what I would have expected from you.

On Sunday, May 8th, Kent Van Cleave said:

KH persists in ignoring her critics, using various logically disreputable tactics. As her original note to Vin clearly summarized, "There was much to recommend the novel, but I feel the sexual content destroyed the book's potential value." Most of her protestations here have consisted of either denying without argument that there IS much to recommend the book, or refusing to honestly consider that she is wrong about the role and value of sexual scenes in the book. Add into the mix an attempt to pretend that objections to her trumping the published mission statement of LFB with her own puritanical biases really amount to objecting to her exercising the editorial role implicit in LFB's mission statement.

As has been explained quite clearly by others here, Vin's use of sex scenes serves moral messages. It shows what healthy sex is about, and it shows that pathological sex tends to stem from the same place (lust for power) that government abuse does. That's amply valuable in itself to justify its use in the book. It also provides counterpoint to Ayn Rand's cockamamie ideas about sex and romantic love, so that people who have read her books and tend to attribute those views to the larger freedom movement can see they are wrong to do so.

More to the point, however (one at least hinted at by another poster or two here), is that the freedom movement doesn't need another antiseptic, ivory-towerish polemic masquerading as a novel. It needs to add hot, juicy fiction (portraying friction of all kinds ;-) as a medium for our message. Those nasty sex scenes (the ones with the bad guys) are needed in order that the reader not be shielded from experiencing the horror of it (in the way that merely summarizing those encounters rather than showing them, as KH recommends, simply can't manage). We don't need a string of narrative descriptions telling us that govgoons do bad things; we know this already. What we need is to have our noses stuck into the stink of it -- to be subjected to the sheer outrage of it -- so that we don't just merely yawn and reach for the next book, but boil and fester and ferment until we can't help but DO SOMETHING to stop the outrages. We need to generate a permanent, visceral aversion to the pathology of controlling other individuals, and that means spending time, up close and personal, with the ugliness -- even if only vicariously. And if the vicarious experience is all we (blessedly) have, then it had better be shocking, intense, and troubling enough to compensate for the difference between vicarious and personal experience.

I hope KH will actually stop to consider honestly that she may have erred. Surely enough has been said here to refute her original notion that the sex not only plays no significant role in the novel, but detracts from whatever good it contains. She just needs to pay attention and be objective.

On Sunday, May 8th, charley said:

"speak for yourself." well said, putrimalu. rabid agreement here. it was the point of my reply.

re me twisting your comment to absurdity, i don't agree. in principle, sunni merely did exactly what kathleen did. you not only ignored that in your comment, you pretended that it didn't happen. if you're going to fret over sunni's action (at her web site, with her business, etc.), it's the same with kathleen. however, you criticized sunni and defended kathleen. some commenters on this thread have thrown up an arbitrary line separating the two incidents -- one as "freedom" the other as "overreaction". why? i have no idea.

you misunderstood my short-hand internet organization comment. i mean that it's the only level of organization we need to worry about, not that we should live online (or whatever "Liberty online may be enough for you" means). if you want to hook up with people, have at it. i do as well. however, you're also decrying separation, when it's as much their business to separate as it is yours to combine. "speak for yourself" never sounded so good.

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

putrimalu, it appears to me that you have taken my request to all current and prospective commenters too personally. I will not ban anyone on the basis of an unpopular view, and have never done so at this blog. I will remove commenting privileges on my space for those who attack persons rather than ideas, whose comments are unsolicited commercials, or are antithetical to freedom.

On Sunday, May 8th, Dan Boone said:

You know, I don't see anyone here questioning LFB's right to include or exclude titles from its catalog for any reason, including personal whim of the prudes in charge.

But you see, LFB has its reputation, and much of its business, because it claims to serve the cause of liberty. A business, yes, but a business with a reputation of service to a cause.

I know I have bought books from LFB when it cost me more (in money or effort) than buying the same books elsewhere. I did it, because I thought LFB was doing us some good while making its money.

I don't see Sunni taking a position contrary to her free-market views. I do hear her having a reaction similar to mine: "If these people care so little for the cause that they won't spend an extra column inch in the catalog to placate the social conservatives among us, why are we wasting our money on them?"

On Sunday, May 8th, Joe Crowe said:

I'm a bit surprised at the actions of LFB, but not totally. LFB has demonstrated some cracks in their philosophical purity for a good while. If one reads the opinions in their periodic catalog mailouts, one can see this trend. It's also worth remembering that Ayn Rand/Objectivism != libertarianism.
As far as Vin's novel Black Arrow goes, it was a fun read, IMO. I'm sending my copy around to my friends, along with John Ross' novel Unintended Consequences, which IMO tackles the same issues a little better. Good luck with your boycott. Hold their feet to the fire.

Respectfully,
Joe Crowe

On Sunday, May 8th, John DeWitt said:

I'm very surprised to hear about this decision from LFB. It does seem like a strange choice.

But it's their choice to make. I assume these folks know who their audience is, or at least who they want it to be. There will be plenty of places to buy the book when it becomes generally available and I plan to do so. (I haven't read it yet, because while I like the VS books I've read to date quite a lot, the prospect of reading his first novel just wasn't worth $50.) In fact, I happened to notice just yesterday that it'll be available on Amazon next month, and next month Amazon will get some of my business. I'm sorry it can't be LFB, but that's their choice. I wish them well with it.

This notion of boycotting everyone/anyone who doesn't toe a particular political or cultural line just isn't something that's ever resonated well with me.

On Sunday, May 8th, Sunni said:

This isn't about a boycott! Dan Boone's comment distills my action and purpose in writing Kathleen and publishing that letter here to its essence. Thank you, Dan'l dear, for putting it so succinctly.

On Sunday, May 8th, Thomas L. Knapp said:

After reading the letter and all the comments, I still find myself pretty much 100% in agreement with Sunni.

Sunni is not calling for a "boycott" of LFB. Neither am I. LFB is entitled by right to make its own decisions as to which books it will carry.

On the other hand, over time I've often found that books I would like to buy, specifically libertarian books that I believe should be made as widely available as possible, aren't available from LFB. And that disappoints me.

To the extent that this is often for plain vanilla business reasons -- if LFB doesn't think it can sell a case of Book X, they aren't going to want to buy a case of Book X -- it's understandable.

To the extent that it reflects poor judgment regarding the role of sex, a misunderstanding of what the readers want or a poor grasp of the quality of a book -- and I believe all three to be the case where The Black Arrow is concerned -- all I can really do is express my disappointment, which I've done.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

On Sunday, May 8th, James Leroy Wilson said:

I suspect that Ms. Hiserodt simply does not like The Black Arrow and does not want to buy and sell it. Perhaps invoking the sexual content was a convenient excuse, more polite than saying "Vin, your novel sucked. Stick to columns."

I haven't read the novel myself, but this seems like the most plausible explanation. Another is fear of LFB developing a reputation for being too radical.

I would otherwise imagine that this novel would have been a solid seller for LFB, considering the endless hype over the past many months for it.

On Sunday, May 8th, Mike Dugger said:

This thread has been quite an interesting read; though I found The Black Arrow to be much more so. I think James Leroy Wilson almost hits the nail on the head in pointing out that Vin's novel is radical while LFB is conservative.

I would go further and state that Vin's novel is revolutionary. That would seem to me to be its overriding characteristic. That this causes problems with a vendor such as LFB is to be expected. Having read it, I think I would have fainted had I heard that they would carry it.

Kathleen, as others have taken great pains to point out, is entitled to choose which books she will/will not carry. We, in turn, are free to choose from whom we will/will not acquire our reading matter. I'm increasingly partial to vendors that specialize in radical/revolutionary material. I think this sort of free market diversity is a good sign in a world replete with so many bad signs.

Remember that Unintended Consquences rose from outside the Libertarian firmament and, for a time, was carried by LFB only after it had achieved legendary status. Whether The Black Arrow will have a similar future will be entirely up to LFB.
- Mike Dugger

On Sunday, May 8th, Fran Tully said:

I want to sincerely thank Sunni for running this thread and bringing much needed attention to this issue. I also ran a piece on my blog (http://freewest.blogspot.com ).
While I agree with Sunni, and love how Daniel clarified the message, I DO support a boycott. It seems that people only recognize an error when there is a financial tie to their poor decision. Ms. H. admits that while she personally is offended by Rand's books, that they have done a great deal of good for the liberty community. Yet, even after those on this site try to beat her over the head with the fact that this book might have the same effect, she declines to reconsider. I am extremely put off by those who are willing to sacrafice an opportunity to bring more people into the freedom movement because doing so causes a conflict with their high morals. Living in Salt Lake City, I encounter many folks like this every year.
I find blowing up civilians, trampling peoples rights, the USA PATRIOT ACT, Waco, Ruby Ridge, 50% taxes, national ID cards, and forced vaccinations and Ritalin for children FAR more disturbing than any sex scene one can imagine. I for one believe that a boycott may help to draw attention to the hypocricy at LFB.
- Fran Tully

On Sunday, May 8th, Tribeless said:

We've had our 'big' disagreements before, Sunni, but I'm in agreement with you on this one.

Dan Boone above stated my position better than I could, so I'll let it stand at that, other than adding my support.

Amazon will get my money on this one, and though I don't agree with the concept of a boycott either, I'll think much more seriously in the future about making purchases from LFB nevertheless.

Quite apart from the philosophical underpinnings, that is, yes, LFB does have the right to sell any damn thing they want, or not, what really gets under my skin, on top of Dan's objections, is this prudish and puritanical approach smacks almost of Bible Belt (last thing I'd expect from organisation supporting freedom movment), come censorship, come dry ivory tower, come (and the biggest pricker of all), no damned sense of life, management. I'm really disappointed.

It would almost make you think that LPF has been gotten at by the Feminist Left

On Sunday, May 8th, freeman said:

Wow... I go out of town for the weekend and come back to all this!

Kathleen and LFB certainly can choose to carry or not to carry whatever they want, but I don't like their decision regarding The Black Arrow.

This seems like a prime example of the type of conservative vs. radical schism that has been getting more attention lately, such as over at Wally Conger's blog. I may not be interested in promoting a boycott of LFB, but I am disappointed that:
a) the feelings of puritanical social conservatives apparently trump the unbridled promotion of liberty at LFB, and...
b) as Mike Dugger pointed out, texts that are more radical or even revolutionary are set aside in favor of more conservative texts.

In addition to Mike Dugger, I also find myself in general agreement with Thomas Knapp, Dan Boone, Charley and Sunni on this issue, and I'm glad that Sunni brought this to our attention. James Leroy Wilson's suggestions also make sense to me, especially (again) the notion of Vin's book being perhaps too radical for the tastes of Kathleen and the LFB crew. This seems to be backed up by the eye opening column by Burton Blumert that Tom Ender linked to.

On Monday, May 9th, Jeff Riggenbach said:

As a former employee of LFB -- I worked there in various capacities throughout the '90s -- I have long deplored the store's tendency to, as I saw it, over-promote the works of conservatives and under-promote (or fail to carry at all) the works of libertarians. The facts of reality are the facts of reality, however. LFB is not subsidized by some deep-pockets billionaire who happily picks up whatever loss it suffers. It has to make its way in the marketplace like any other business. The reality of the situation is that without the conservative readers who buy many of the dryasdust economics titles and most of the books on investing, the store would have a much harder time staying afloat. Conservatives are much more numerous than libertarians. If you have to risk offending one of those two groups in order to do what you believe is necessary to keep your business afloat, who are you going to risk offending?

Those who have run LFB over the years have sometimes had to grit their teeth and adopt a position they weren't entirely comfortable with, because it was clearly the lesser of evils, and it seemed necessary to protect the business. One instance of this was the store's reluctant decision to refrain from carrying for several years an outstanding biography of Rose Wilder Lane, because to do so would threaten its good relationship with Roger MacBride.

I have had no personal correspondence with Kathleen over all this. I know no more about it than anybody else who's read this thread. But I find her explanation of her position entirely comprehensible and entirely blameless.

And I know this: if you value having LFB, if you regard it (as I do) as one of the most important libertarian institutions, if you seek to help assure its continued existence, do not take economic action against it which could only force it, out of self preservation, to become even more conservative. Accept its imperfections. Understand that we libertarians, though we are far more numerous than we were when I became involved in the late 1960s, are not yet numerous enough to support the kind of truly radical institutions we would prefer. Criticize LFB all you like. But support it, if you want it to remain.

On Monday, May 9th, Sunni said:

Thanks to all who've added to the conversation here -- especially you, Jeff. I appreciate you adding something of an "insider's" perspective.

I understand the necessity of "accepting imperfections" -- we all have to, in ourselves as well as in others. However, if a person lets his standards slide too far, pretty soon he'll have no standards at all. The question I think individuals hearing of LFB's decision and reading this page should ask themselves is, "Is Laissez Faire Books still a libertarian business?" For me, that answer is no. Given that, I see no reason to give the company the extra consideration that I had been. Others will make their own decisions, and the marketplace will work. That's really all I want.

On Monday, May 9th, Militant Libertarian said:

Interestingly, LFB carries "Atlas Shrugged" which has heavy sexual content. In fact, the main character, Dagney, has sexual relations with several men throughout the book - one of whom is married during their affair.

By my count, their current catalog has eight versions of this novel.

They also carry Robert Heinlein's "Stranger in a Strange Land," which preaches (as the main character's new religion) open sexuality and even multiple-partner orgies...

So why is it that LFB chooses to carry these "morally debased" works while refusing to carry Vin's, which you've described as being "1950's-like"?

In my mind, "offending the conservatives" is not an argument. What harm will come to them for merely adding Vin's book to their catalogue? If they don't make money from fiction anyway, what's to lose?

I think there's more to it than this.

On Monday, May 9th, Anthony Lewis said:

Vin shouldn't feel too bad. LFBs refused to stock my book - The Third Revolution - because I couldn't meet their 40% wholesale discount requirement. I didn't even get rejected on the merits...
AFL

On Monday, May 9th, Kirsten said:

Um, no I don't consider LFB one of the most important libertarian institutions. I can't imagine how anyone would come to such a conclusion.

I, too, am stumped by the apparent lack of consistency in standards for what books are carried. If sexual content is really the problem, then why doesn't LFB just stop carrying the other books mentioned as having equal or greater offensive potential? And if LFB's customers are not so terribly offended by the above mentioned books as to harm the business, then why does LFB expect The Black Arrow to suddenly drive off customers? This just does not make sense to me.

On Monday, May 9th, Paul said:

Oh wow this topic sure has ignited a firestorm,I'm almost scared to wonder in but here goes.

I've long noticed that most librtarian types are quite strong willed and opinionated-nothing wrong with that.However in the process of pursuing greater freedm I think it behooves us to see a bigger picture.

I personally am disappointed that LFB has chosen not to sell Vin's book and I think the reasons stated are rather weak.Nevertheless I'd rather concentrate my limted resources fighting the hardcore statist practices and institutions instead of LFB.This controversy will fade in time no doubt but the intrusive big nanny state just keeps marching on.Anybody out there that's with me on this?

On Monday, May 9th, Thomas L. Knapp said:

Y'all,

This matter is now being discussed over on solohq.com, an Objectivist forum. below my sig is my latest post from that thread, brought here because I thought it might be pertinent.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

Quoth Barbara Branden:

"As for your remarks about Andrea Rich, the owner of LFB, I have known her for many years, and I assure you that she is not troubled by the sex scenes in Rand's books; she is a great admirer of Rand's work. It is emphatically not the case that she continues to carry The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged -- and every other Rand book and tape she can find -- only because her store has always carried them."

Andrea retired in January. Here's what Kathleen Hiserodt had to say on the subject:

"I personally have problems with 'Atlas' and 'Fountainhead' re: the issue referred to. But they were already in our selection when I came onto the scene. And there's no question (in my mind) that they both are books that have brought scores of people to pro-freedom thinking. In hindsight, there's no question that their good outweighed the bad."

The "problems" Ms. Hiserodt references are the rapes, quasi-rapes and serial non-marital sexual encounters in both novels. I'd rather not open up that whole can of worms at length, but suffice it to say that Ms. Hiserodt's "problem" seems to be that she doesn't understand or allow for any healthy purpose in literary sex.

With Rand, she doesn't understand that much of the purpose of the sex scenes is to explore value (as, for example, when Dagny Taggart finds, is attracted to, and ultimately sleeps with, a succession of more and more heroic men) or to examine implicit and not openly expressed, rather than consciously held, desires as with Roark and Dominique. Or maybe I have Rand wrong -- there's been plenty of debate on it, hasn't there?

With Suprynowicz -- and yes, I have read The Black Arrow, she seems to be offended by two specific things:

1) The protagonist and two female characters become involved in a love triangle which, ultimately, is resolved as a question of who is his highest value ...and the principals are not afraid of -- indeed they seek -- procreation. Ms. Hiserodt seems to have mistaken this for some kind of Catholic "no sex except for procreation" stand, but in the context of the book, it clearly isn't. It's an extension of value. Everyone involved wants to create a new person who presumably will represent a melding of two values -- the value they place on their own lives, and the value they place on the person they love -- and an extension of those values beyond their own lives. Of course, there's more than procreation involved in such a thing. There's teaching. That, however, is also strongly implied.

2) One of the antagonists in the book extorts sex -- kinky S&M sex -- from women with dire threats, using his power as a government functionary to get what he wants. There are implications that other antagonists are equally evil in this respect.

The book is more explicit than anything Rand wrote. Then again, there are reasons why that might be so.

Rand got her start in motion pictures, and may have continued to partially adhere to the stricter codes of sexual portrayal imposed on that medium after moving to novels (I could be misremembering, but I seem to recall that there was a fairly torrid sex scene in We The Living, which I think was written before her prime period in Hollywood).

Also, editorial standards have changed. A writer can get away with things now that he or she couldn't have in 1943 or 1957, when The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were published. Not all of those changes are good, but it's worth considering that Rand's sex scenes might have been a little more explicit had they been written last year instead of 50-60 years ago.

There's no reasonable standard by which the sex scenes in The Black Arrow could be construed as pornographic or anything close to it. The sex is mildly explicit, but it is not purposeless -- it fits within the broader context of the story being told, and plays a functional part in the story. Contra Hiserodt, there's nothing in the novel that would require a "warning label" in the catalog. If I ran out to the bookstore and picked up the five best-selling novels right now, I can virtually guarantee that four of them would include sex scenes that are more explicit, and gratuitous to boot.

Is LFB free to carry, or not carry, The Black Arrow as its owners and editors choose? Certainly. But I don't find the reasoning offered convincing. LFB seems, at this time, intent upon protecting their readers from themselves ... and exactly what they think they're protecting those readers from is unclear.

Regards,
Tom Knapp

On Monday, May 9th, Sunni said:

Paul, I agree with you that there are more pressing matters at hand for freedom activists; I'm working on several at the moment. However, I think it's also important to speak up when I observe something or someone who's generally known as being pro-freedom appearing to be straying from that. I think that's what's been happening at LFB, and I decided to voice my concerns.

I'm under no illusions that my decision to end my affiliate relationship with LFB will bring them down; I don't even want to bring them down. I'm not interested in fighting them. I simply have concerns about the company keeping to its mission; and thought those worth sharing.

Thanks for the pointer to SOLOHQ, Tom. And for your comments here.

On Monday, May 9th, MamaLiberty said:

I was shocked to see that LFB wouldn't carry The Black Arrow, and even more shocked to see the shallow reason for it.

I'm not a big fan of graphic sex in literature, and some of it was very uncomfortable to read, but to call anything in TBA "gratuitous sexual content" is foolish at best. I didn't see any that wasn't essential to the story, making the characters very real and human.

LFB is, of course, within their rights to accept or reject anything they want, but I will never again consider them a seriously freedom oriented organization, and will most certainly not bother to shop there in the future.

I don't see any point in promoting a boycott, since that would just give LFB more publicity. I'm with Paul insofar as being happy to see this whole thing simply fade away. Let the free market work, as it will anyway. They may just have cut their own throat to spite their face. So be it.

On Monday, May 9th, White Dog said:

It looks like this comes down to a few simple points-

- LFB became known as a good source for 'liberty themed' literature.

- No one here seems to seriously want to force a business to carry a product against their will.

- Most here seem upset that a business they want to support (and have in the past) is not the'good source' they believed.

For whatever reason, the LFB selection criteria is filtering out one of the best known libertarian authors in the country.

And as others have posted, it doesn't require a boycott to force a business like LFB to add or drop a product - the market will adjust - and consumers will simply shop where they can find what they are looking for.

As for my market participation, why would I frequent, or recommend, a business with a noticeable gap in their selection of what should be their core product line.

On Monday, May 9th, Boston T. Party said:

I personally understand how it feels to have one's book passed on by LFB for what feels like lame reasons.

Before KH's time, Andrea passed on two of my best books: Hologram of Liberty, and Boston's Gun Bible.

Her refusal rationales were different, though in my mind similarly unsupportable. (BGB she termed "gruesome" and a "blueprint for revolution." HoL she spluttered as "that, that book"--whatever that meant.)

I've yet to submit Molôn Labé! to LFB, but perhaps I should do so, giving KH a try.

Since Vin has yet to send me a reciprocal review copy of his novel, I've not read it and thus cannot specifically comment on all this hooplah over its sex scenes.

If they are as graphic as those in Unintended Consequences, then KH may have a valid point.

If not, then likely not.

Regarding graphic sexual imagery in such novels, it's often rather a close call.

I understand such being an effective device to reveal the deep evil of the Bad Guys, yet I also recognize that any such imagery is too often "justified" by the author as art for art's sake when what he actually added is some porn for porn's sake.

In the case of Unintended Consequences, I think that John Ross veered off on the porn side (and I've discussed this with him personally), thus needlessly tarnishing an otherwise excellent work and losing many sales.

Regarding TBA, I don't know, but from reading these comments it doesn't quite seem that Vin went porno (though it necessarily is more graphic than Rand's novels simply because of the times).

Still, it was KH's call.

All this aside, I am surprised at the amount of energy expended over the issue of one bookseller rejecting one book. As far as I can tell, Vin is less bothered by it than some of his readers.

Boston T. Party

On Monday, May 9th, steve said:

Jeff and Putrimalu make good points people. Kathleen is running her show and decided not to carry Vin's book. It can be found elsewhere, no? Don't get all emotional -- Buy it direct!! Kathleen's real mistake was to justify her decision. If she had just wrote back that she had decided not to carry it and been all political-wise-speakish she would have avoided a lot of grief. Personally, I found some of the scenes in TBA a little "saucy" and when passing around the book felt obliged to warn readers of such. I am not so unread that I didn't understand the reasoning for the scenes, but felt they were a little over-graphic (but that was Vin's choice) which means I will probably self-sensor my recommendations to some of my friends that tend to read liberty works such as St. Francis de Sales. On that saintly note, I will comment that Vin portrayed Catholic sentiment toward sex much better than Tom's understanding. I enjoyed your interview with Vin, Sunni.

On Tuesday, May 10th, Paul Bonneau said:

I see the freedom movement is at its old tricks - whacking each other with great vigor.

Come on, folks, this is silly. LFB can sell or not sell any book they want for any reason they want, even petty ones. They have chosen a somewhat dowdy, academic image, and The Black Arrow does not fit it (I agree). Let's move on, shall we?

On Tuesday, May 10th, Sunni said:

Paul, I'm not suggesting that LFB doesn't have a right to make their own decisions. The points, as I see them, are these:
1] they bill themselves as a libertarian bookseller, but aren't carrying a strongly pro-freedom book;
2] the reason given leans toward "protecting" customers, rather than providing a short disclaimer ("graphic sexual depictions" should be sufficient) and letting customers choose for themselves; and
3] as an affiliate of LFB, the decision affects my business too.

I'm asking, publicly, how freedom-oriented Laissez Faire Books is, because others who want to support pro-freedom individuals and businesses will benefit from asking and answering that question. Those who see this can decide for themselves whether I'm full of shit, or whether Kathleen is full of shit (or whether we both are). I don't care what others decide.

As an LFB affiliate, I'd like to make money through that relationship. It appears to me that Kathleen let personal reasons lead to a bad business decision, and I asked her to reconsider. Her responses here show no indication of having done that, so I'll withdraw my support of the company. I don't think that's silly: it looks to me like a free market at work as it's supposed to perform.

Steve, I'm glad you enjoyed the interview -- those are a lot of work but perhaps the most fun aspect of Sunni's Salon.

Boston, I don't know what Vin's thoughts or feelings are; I do know he forwarded that notice to me, as well as others. I also see that his Liberty Book Shop page for The Black Arrow features a bit on the dustup. I think calling it censorship is a bit over-the-top, but perhaps that's just marketing at work.

On Wednesday, May 11th, paul jones said:

gee, sunni.

did you really ask kathleen to reconsider carring TBA personally [privately]? did vin even inquire? looks like you are just working the publicity for vin, and hiding behind the "censorship" tag.

i see you severed your association with LFB. then what's their search box doing on your site?

On Wednesday, May 11th, Sunni said:

I don't know what Vin did or didn't do, outside of forwarding her email to me and some others. I sent Kathleen a private email, as well as posting to my blog. As of this writing, she hasn't responded to it. And please note that I'm not calling it censorship.

If Vin wants to use this as publicity, more power to him. But that's not why I did it. I'm not getting paid by him; he didn't ask me to do this.

I presume by "your site" you mean Sunni's Salon ... Tom and I are getting the May issue together now; when it goes up, the LFB box will go bye-bye.

On Wednesday, May 11th, Boston T. Party said:

Sunni, what stuck in my mind regarding Vin's feelings on the matter was:

[Fran Tully] asked Vin for a comment and all he had to say was, "As a private outfit, LFB of course has the right to stock or not stock any book they choose."
-- http://freewest.blogspot.com

I hadn't visited the TBA page of M2's site to catch the "censorship" accusation--thanks for pointing that out.

As far as I understand the concept, a private firm is incapable of actual "censorship."

Only governments can censor.

For accuracy's sake, and to not dilute/misdirect the issue, another word should be substituted for "censorship."

"The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name."
-- Chinese proverb

Boston T. Party

On Wednesday, May 11th, The Kosmik Kid said:

After reading most of this discussion, my comment is "Viva La Blogger" (and blogs in general). Kathleen made a stupid business decision, which is neither wrong nor right except in a business sense. She will lose my business because of it, and I have been a faithful buyer from LFB for years now. She loses it because I believe her action may hurts a fine libertarian author -- for "gratuitous" personal reasons.

Just one more comment: Kathleen said she's also offended by the gratuitous sex in "Atlas Shrugged" but could abide it in part because (paraphrasing freely here) that novel has brought many people to a pro-liberty mindset. Well, Vin's "Send in the Waco Killers" was much more liberating for this reader, and in my opinion, should give him a free pass on almost anything he writes.

Just ordered the leather-bound edition from your competition, Kathleen. Have a noice life.

On Wednesday, May 11th, charley said:

She loses it because I believe her action may [hurt] a fine libertarian author -- for "gratuitous" personal reasons.

LMAO. kosmik kid, you're alright.

On Thursday, May 12th, Sunni said:

Two excerpts from an email I received from Rick Tompkins:

"In the past, a weekly order of 20 copies of any one of our titles from Amazon.com was a strong order. So that firm's initial April order of 68 copies of The Black Arrow was an indication the folks at Amazon believed the novel would sell as well as -- or somewhat better than -- Vin's non-fiction books.

"Since April 15, Amazon.com has RE-ordered The Black Arrow ... 13 times.

"Yesterday, May 11, Amazon.com ordered 130 copies of The Black Arrow. In ONE DAY. One hundred thirty copies."

And on the discussion regarding LFB's decision:
"We've tried to stay out of this controversy, lest the complaints be characterized as somehow driven by the 'sour grapes' of us 'rejects.' But we DO wish someone would answer the self-righteous and ignorant posters who keep assuring everyone, 'This is no big deal, the novel will soon be available in LOTS of other outlets' ... by simply asking them to 'Name nine.'

"Let's see, there's our own LibertyBookShop.us; there's Amazon.com; there's Mike Hoy's fine folks at the Loompanics Catalog in Port Townsend, Washington; there's Oregon-based 'Backwoods Home' magazine; there's Jim Dodson's 'Liberty Books & Comics' in College Park, MD; there's Machine Gun Kelly's Gun Vault here in Las Vegas, NV and Spurlock's Gun Shop in Henderson, NV, and then there's ... um ... let's see. That's seven. Can anyone help us, here?

"Didn't think so.

"If selling freedom-oriented books in the face of a full-court boycott by America's cookie-cutter corporate bookstores was easy, everybody would be doing it."

On Friday, May 13th, Coya Coleman said:

I have yet to receive my copy of "Black Arrow", which I ordered from Loompanics. Second printing in the works there, Vin? I thought I was antsy to read it before! Now I can't wait for the UPS guy to arrive and not just cuz he's good looking.

I have to agree with most of you on principle, tho. LBF has the right to do what they want, but not to support a stalwart like Vin is just bad business and may come around to bite them in the hiney.

I will keep this in mind when/if I decide to order from LBF.

On Saturday, May 14th, Scott Bieser said:

This whole affair began just as I was leaving on a week-long trip to Wyoming, and at first I was frustrated that being away from my computer, I couldn't participate in the discussion I knew would be happening. Now, I'm glad that I've had time to think about the subject for a while before commenting.

For the benefit of those who don't know, I painted the cover art for _The Black Arrow_. Or I should say, I was immensely honored to be asked by Vin to paint the cover for this book.

In fact, when Vin sent me an early draft of the story I saw that this would be such an important work that I set aside production of _The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel_ for almost a month, just so that I could be part of this.

While my only direct business relationship with LFB is as an affilliate (and not very active one at that), LFB has chosen to carry both of my graphic novels: _A Drug War Carol_ (with Susan W. Wells) and the aforementioned graphic adaptation of L. Neil Smith's _The Probability Broach_.

My brother Frank, who in his alternate identity as "BigHead Press" is also my publisher, has told me that while he disagrees with Katherine's choice regarding Vin's book, he sees no reason why it should affect his business relationship with LFB. Just so we're all clear on that.

I have long regarded Laissez-Faire Books as the best all-around source of quality libertarian literature, both academic and popular. In the pre-Internet days, I always looked forward to getting their catalogue in the mail, and normally spent at least a couple of very enjoyable hours looking through its offerings.

(No sleight intended towards Loompanics or Renaissance Books, but I don't think there's much doubt LFB has long dominated this admittedly tiny market.)

So when I learned that Kathleen had chosen not to carry the book, I was at first shocked and then disappointed. How could LFB reject what may well be the most important work of libertarian fiction in this decade, at the very least?

And because of the _sex scenes_?????

It is truly puzzling. Others have pointed out the sex scenes in Rand's and Heinlein's novels, which LFB not only carries but often gives extra promotional space in its catalogues.

And for what it's worth, _The Probability Broach: The Graphic Novel_ (I promise, my next book will have a much shorter title), has three nude scenes -- although two of them are played for laughs rather than titillation. Are these scenes "vulgar and gratuitious?" Presumably Kathleen has seen these, and thinks not.

Well, as has often been said here, it's Kathleen's company to run, and her indisputable right to make such choices.

Just as it is the also right of the rest of us to hold and express our opinions regarding LFB's editorial decisions.

I have also long known that LFB has a clientelle that is predominantly free-market conservative. Up until now, I had believed that LFB did a fairly good job of serving both the market conservatives and libertarians.

I personally think Kathleen has slipped up on this one. If this really is more evidence of a growing schism in the movement between "safe" libertarianism and "radical" libertarianism, and LFB is aligning itself with the "safe" group against the "radical" group, then perhaps it is time for a new enterprise to assume the mantle of "the best general source of libertarian literature."

Perhaps one of LFB's current competitors may step up to the plate, or someone new may arrive on the scene. But if things continue as they have been of late, it's only a matter of time before someone assumes this mantle which has apparently grown too difficult for LFB to handle.

On Wednesday, May 18th, Lee Killough said:

Wow, I never knew LFB was so prudish.

In a country which is functionally illiterate, you'd think that words in a book would be less of a concern. It's fortunate that anyone reads at all.

I have not ordered from LFB in over 3 years. Their online ordering system was falling behind technically, and I could find prices just as good elsewhere. Even back then, I thought their collection was somewhat limited, focusing heavily on very narrow selected domains (e.g. John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, Ayn Rand), but leaving out the threads which connect libertarians.

They are in a difficult position -- how to differentiate themselves from Amazon.com and the thousands of other online bookstores.

If they avoid controversial titles (or imagine controversy where it didn't exist before), and they promote the titles which appeal to conservatives and the silent majority, then they are sinking to the lowest common denominator. They will lose in the end, because they don't have the volume to compete with Amazon.com and the like.

If LFB is to survive, it must differentiate itself as THE source of libertarian books, which means it must build loyalty. Clearly this is not happening.

(The Thomas Szasz Award was one unique thing about LFB -- I hope it continues.)


Of course, this controversy could all be a publicity stunt by LFB to increase its name recognition (and thus sales), and maybe increase sales of The Black Arrow for some kickback royalties.... Every "banned" book becomes an instant bestseller among libertarians.

Home
Previous entry: "Science Tailor-Made for F Paul Wilson"
Next entry: "Technical Difficulties..."