Slog
News & ArtsThursday, June 3, 2010
Tech / Books James Joyce Is Too Dirty for the iPad
Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:17 PM
- The offending squiggle.
Apple has strict guidelines and a rating system to prevent "adult content." Their highest mature content rating is 17+, which doesn't seem to be a problem since no one reads Ulysses at sixteen anyway. But their guidelines also mean no nudity whatsoever. Which is something we never planned for.Joyce's novel is pretty explicit in its language and themes, so much so that in 1932 it won one of the most important court decisions about censorship in American history. While the first chapter of the book, the one now at iTunes, doesn't contain "offensive language" our comic does have frank nudity. Something we figured we might have to pixelate or cover with "fig leaves". But Apple's policy prohibits even that. So we were forced to either scrap the idea of moving to the tablet with Apple or re-design our pages.
Instead, they've cropped some of the images for the iPad app (go to Robot 6 for an example) and included links to the Ulysses Seen website for the uncensored content.
Dear Apple: This is getting ridiculous.
2
choose a closed proprietary system and bend over to receive your reward.
(Jim_Gaffigan-esque: "i think he's jabbering about linux" "oh, well then just ignore him")
(Jim_Gaffigan-esque: "i think he's jabbering about linux" "oh, well then just ignore him")
4
Oh quit yer whining.
Just download it to your iTunes server and copy it from that. They don't have to sell it, and you can get a copy direct from the source.
Kind of like music - never buy it from iTunes - buy the CD or DVD direct from the band at a performance and they get half the money you pay, on average. Instead of 1 cent.
Just download it to your iTunes server and copy it from that. They don't have to sell it, and you can get a copy direct from the source.
Kind of like music - never buy it from iTunes - buy the CD or DVD direct from the band at a performance and they get half the money you pay, on average. Instead of 1 cent.
5
In hindsight, I should've predicted that Apple's obsession with creating a pleasant user experience would inevitably lead them to become the Disney theme park of the digital world.
6
What strikes me is how surprising this is to the legions of Apple-lovers. There's nothing new here, Apple's resurgence has been built on the "gilded cage" model - everything's great as long as you do exactly as Mr. Jobs wants. I used to use iTunes because it was the best option available at the time. Then, as Jobs & Co. started purposefully and systematically making it impossible for me to sync my non-iThingy with iTunes, I found a different product. I had a work-issued smartphone at the time, why the hell should I buy an iThingy? If you ask Jobs, it's because my device didn't offer the right "experience." Apparently, neither does James Joyce in comic form, and I suspect it's only a matter of time before the Savage Love app is yanked from the app store as well.
I wonder what Apple's stance on the Bible is, and if the Christians will revolt if Bible apps are pulled for being patently smutty? I mean really, Genesis 19:35-36... "And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."
That's sick shit, far worse than a doodled ding-dong IMHO, as Ulysses isn't supposed to be a cultural moral touchstone like the Bible is purported to be by its defenders.
I wonder what Apple's stance on the Bible is, and if the Christians will revolt if Bible apps are pulled for being patently smutty? I mean really, Genesis 19:35-36... "And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father."
That's sick shit, far worse than a doodled ding-dong IMHO, as Ulysses isn't supposed to be a cultural moral touchstone like the Bible is purported to be by its defenders.
7
Excuse me, I didn't hear what you said, I was too busy watching an x-rated vid on my iTunes server using the Wifi to play it in my house ...
9
@6 - I'm fine with Jobs being a control freak on product design. Either he get's it right or he doesn't, and the market decides.
But control of ideas and art is a whole nother thing.
But control of ideas and art is a whole nother thing.
12
@11: Because he's Will in Seattle, and he'll be here, being irrelevant until the sun explodes and eats planet Earth.
14
God damn, What the fuck is offensive about a penis? All men have them, so they shouldn't offend them, and all women know about them. WHO is offended by genitalia? Thats like deciding to be offended by hands and requiring gloves for all people.
15
And in the same vein as #14: why does anyone care if some people are "offended" (I'm not even sure what they mean by offended) by something? If you're offended by drawings of naked people, don't buy the app. It's that simple; it's not like this is in a public place where you're forced to see it, and even if it was, so what? If someone's uncomfortable with nudity, the proper solution is psychotherapy to help them get over it, as there's nothing inherently socially or psychologically damaging about seeing naked people. The problem is with the individual who has a problem with nudity, not with nudity itself.
This suggests that being "offended" isn't what this is actually about, as any "offense" can be avoided by the person who is offended by nude drawings not looking at them. What this is about is the people claiming offense wanting to prevent ANYONE from having access to naked drawings, as they think they are "wrong" or something. I don't know why Apple is kowtowing to their demands.
Self-censorship by private organizations/companies has always confused me, as compliance with censorship law is all that is required to protect one from legal action. Movie theaters (and rental stores) restricting R-rated films is particularly odd, as this is a voluntary and not legally-enforced practice; given that teens are a huge potential market for these films, it always seems to make economic sense to NOT voluntarily enforce an age restriction (legally-classified "pornography" is the only content that must be age-restricted by law).
The "Family Values" folks are in the minority in many places in the US; why is everyone still acting like they are representative of public opinion at-large?
This suggests that being "offended" isn't what this is actually about, as any "offense" can be avoided by the person who is offended by nude drawings not looking at them. What this is about is the people claiming offense wanting to prevent ANYONE from having access to naked drawings, as they think they are "wrong" or something. I don't know why Apple is kowtowing to their demands.
Self-censorship by private organizations/companies has always confused me, as compliance with censorship law is all that is required to protect one from legal action. Movie theaters (and rental stores) restricting R-rated films is particularly odd, as this is a voluntary and not legally-enforced practice; given that teens are a huge potential market for these films, it always seems to make economic sense to NOT voluntarily enforce an age restriction (legally-classified "pornography" is the only content that must be age-restricted by law).
The "Family Values" folks are in the minority in many places in the US; why is everyone still acting like they are representative of public opinion at-large?
16
@15 Yeah, the whole system of self-censorship is awful. Ad companies need to realize that they succeeded in making brainless consumers and stupid fish headed people, so they don't really need to care about pissing anyone off, fish people will still buy their crap. And if Ad people can realize this, them creators can, and they can stop censoring themselves on the possibility of pissing off ad people.
I mean Cable Television could show hard core porn 24 hours a day, its a service you pay for, but they wont because ad people wont buy into it.
This is also the same reason movies like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland are so terrible, Summer movies today still have unbelievable tacky, bad and cheap "pop" songs accompanying the credits for what reason? Anyone remember Snakes on A Plane, what the hell was that song about on the end? Nobody said "Oh hey, uh its not 1990 anymore we don't need RAD to be a watchword when thinking about selling our crap to kids."
ALSO, A 4th tangent.
(Spot on about the "Family Values" folk, we really need to get rid of them.
I mean Cable Television could show hard core porn 24 hours a day, its a service you pay for, but they wont because ad people wont buy into it.
This is also the same reason movies like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland are so terrible, Summer movies today still have unbelievable tacky, bad and cheap "pop" songs accompanying the credits for what reason? Anyone remember Snakes on A Plane, what the hell was that song about on the end? Nobody said "Oh hey, uh its not 1990 anymore we don't need RAD to be a watchword when thinking about selling our crap to kids."
ALSO, A 4th tangent.
(Spot on about the "Family Values" folk, we really need to get rid of them.
17
Steve Jobs needs to grow up, shelve his ego and stop being a fucking control freak.
Also, they allowed Savage Love but not this? Given how explicit Savage Love is? Or is it because these comic artists are relatively small while Dan is huge and read by millions? This is how censorshit always ends up working- the powerful get a pass, only the little people get their expression curtailed. It's the same with MTV- big stars get a LOT more latitude to show body parts and sing violent and sexually loaded lyrics than small acts. It's also the same with movie ratings- big studio movies by big name directors get an R for things that would have got them an NC17 if it was an indie film. In the visual arts, too, it goes the same way. Always and throughout time, whenever there is a censorship system in place, it ends up favoring the well established. The only solution to the injustice is to eliminate censorship altogether.
Also, they allowed Savage Love but not this? Given how explicit Savage Love is? Or is it because these comic artists are relatively small while Dan is huge and read by millions? This is how censorshit always ends up working- the powerful get a pass, only the little people get their expression curtailed. It's the same with MTV- big stars get a LOT more latitude to show body parts and sing violent and sexually loaded lyrics than small acts. It's also the same with movie ratings- big studio movies by big name directors get an R for things that would have got them an NC17 if it was an indie film. In the visual arts, too, it goes the same way. Always and throughout time, whenever there is a censorship system in place, it ends up favoring the well established. The only solution to the injustice is to eliminate censorship altogether.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
It's Spring! Who's Ready for Street Harassment? by Cienna Madrid
-
SL Letter of the Day: Insane Demands by Dan Savage
-
SL Letters of the Day: Just Say No to DSGs by Dan Savage
-
New Gun Enthusiast... by Dan Savage
-
Bigot Florist Files Countersuit by Dominic Holden
-
America Doesn't Care About Black People by Charles Mudede
-
SL Letter of the Day: Gonna Boil My Laptop After Answering This One by Dan Savage
-
"Bus service shouldn't be optional—it should be a right." by Cienna Madrid
-
US Military Grants Itself the Power to Police American Streets and "Quell" "Civil Disturbances" by Brendan Kiley
-
Fucking NBA Rejects Kings Move to Seattle by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (18) RSS