Remember last week how there was a reader who disagreed with me about censorship?
The quick recap: the Brevard County Library system purchased 19 copies of that book I won’t read (Karen’s review here) then pulled from circulation when someone heard that it was being labeled “mommy porn” in the media.
Well, Galley Cat got wind of it, as did SBSarah, who checked out the library system’s collection. Guess what she found in it?
A very healthy portion of the Longarm books–so-called ‘adult western’ (for Beverly‘s benefit: badly written sex, clearly intended to titillate) along with titles by several well known erotic romance authors (Lora Leigh, Laurell K. Hamilton and Emma Holly, just to name three).
As several readers asked here, what’s different about this book, other than public outcry–and the abominable “mommy porn” moniker?
Nothing, that’s what.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
(The glee part: I posted about this before both the Bitches and GalleyCat–heh)
Bonnie
May 14
10:26 pm
“As several readers asked here, what’s different about this book, other than public outcry–and the abominable “mommy porn” moniker?”
I’ve been asking myself and others this question for weeks. Really, what’s the big deal with this book? I’m absolutely astounded at the attention it’s getting.
Carolyn
May 15
12:38 am
I don’t understand it either. Not only is it a Twilight clone, but my understanding is that it’s badly written too. Is this what gets you a New York contract these days? (It is a NY contract, isn’t it?)
The Brevard County Library just added a significant amount of dollars to James’ bank account.
And congratulations, AL. 😉
Beverly
May 15
1:42 am
I just want to point out again that I said that I didn’t agree with the decision, just that most libraries make decisions like this because they have to draw the line somewhere, and most of the time the line is drawn between mainstream works and what’s considered erotica.
I certainly never said that they always made the correct decision. I stand by my point that some works are meant to titillate and others are not. I actually agree that Hamilton and Leigh write to titillate. I don’t know the Longarm books enough to say what I would think.
Willaful
May 15
2:50 am
Enjoy your righteous glee. 🙂
Anon 76
May 15
7:09 am
Well, I’ve never read a Longarm book, but from the short excerpts provided by SB…there is not one reason at all that 50 shouldn’t be on the library shelves if those books are.
Sigh Does it really go back to this “vestal virgin” type of thing where women dote on the phallus and all its powers? Phallus good, woman bad.
I’m never buying into that, sorry. Lubs my husband to death, but not buying into that. If Longarm books are on the shelves, so should many other books. A library is not a boys club, the last i knew.
Anne
May 15
8:18 am
@Beverly:
But I don’t think anyone disagrees that some books are meant to titillate; just that one book meant to titillate shouldn’t be withdrawn when other books of the same type are not. (I would also argue that books meant to titillate don’t need to be removed from the shelves at all, but that’s just me.)
Beverly
May 16
5:14 pm
@Anne: I was definitely scoffedat for saying some books are meant to titillate in the other thread. It was quite clear some thought that simply to say so about 50 Shades was offensive.
And I agree that titillation doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t belong in a library. All I said all along is that most libraries draw their line there.
In my opinion, it would be better to spend time complaining about people who call things like that “mommy porn” than to worry about libraries caving to their own communities, which they bound by law and money to represent.
Willaful
May 16
8:06 pm
I’m not sure how this is considered caving in to the community. The community wanted the books, and the library bought — what, 19 copies of it? Removing them is disregarding the community’s wishes *and* seriously wasting the community’s money.
Anon 76
May 17
5:41 am
@Beverly:
This was your exact post that raised my eyebrows:
“Well of course whether something does titillate is in the eye of the reader. Heck, certain people could find the very mention of feet titillating. But that does not change what type of book a particular one is. There is a vast difference between books that mention sex and books meant to be masturbatory tools. Most libraries in the US won’t buy books that are the latter”
This sentence in particular:
“There is a vast difference between books that mention sex and books meant to be masturbatory tools.”
To me you went from “tittilate” to “mommy porn” in that one sentence though you never voiced it flat out.
Anon 76
May 17
4:31 pm
And a stat in from PW:
According to BookScan, sales of Fifty Shades of Grey jumped 40% in the week before Mother’s Day compared to the earlier week, selling almost 443,000 copies, pushing total sales to about 1.5 million at outlets tracked by BookScan
I’m not even going into how jealous I am as an author. I remind myself often of what an agent said in his conference presentation once long ago. The publishing world is fickle. It’s hit or miss, BUT, if a bigwig at the publishing company champions you, you are golden. No matter how bad the writing or premise you will get a big chunk of advertising dollars. Hence, creating the hype good or bad.
Was he jaded? Of course. But telling his truth
Beverly
May 17
6:21 pm
@Anon 76: Do you know what titillate means? ‘To stimulate or excite in a sexual way’. Given that, I don’t understand your comment.
Anne
May 17
7:11 pm
@Beverly: Are you saying there’s nothing between ‘titillating’ and ‘sex toy’?
Anon 76
May 18
5:34 am
@Beverly:
Yes I do know the meaning of the word. I can be “tittilated” by a book without being “masturbatory” about it.
@Anne:
Thank you, Anne, my point exactly.
Kristie(J)
May 23
12:34 am
I continue to be amazed at the popularity of this book. I have no intentions at all of reading it (but you know that *g*) but I did read Karen’s review and though there was no wavering in my resolve, this was a wickedly funny review and backed up my resolve even further