Craig, with all due respect your response still does not answer my question. You have just repeated what others in the CS department have said — “that” my book violated these guidelines, no “how or why.” Is it because of the word “rape” in the title? Will Ingram no longer distribute books like “The Rape of Nanking” and “The Rape of Lucretia”? Is it because of the sex in the book? Will Ingram also stop carrying the novels of Jackie Collins and Judith Krantz? Surely it’s not because that sex is gay? I know you don’t consider it Pornography because it does not meet the criteria as laid down by the Supreme Court. Even Amazon acknowledged that. So what specific guideline did I violate?
As written, #10 is so vague, it could be that I used too many ellipses in my text. So by what criteria do I violate it?
Please answer my question.
I thought I was being quite clear, in my request. Here's the response I got:
As written, #10 is so vague, it could be that I used too many ellipses in my text. So by what criteria do I violate it?
Please answer my question.
I thought I was being quite clear, in my request. Here's the response I got:
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
As previously stated, these guidelines apply to all Ingram Spark accounts equally. We understand that you may not agree with the removal, however, this action was taken pursuant to the terms of the Agreement.
Sincerely,
Craig
So, I sent the following, this morning, before being called into work, again.
Which STILL does not answer my question. WHAT was it about the book that caused Ingram to withdraw it from circulation? HOW did it violate that guideline? THAT is what I want to understand. Not this runaround that is simply restating that it did violate it. HOW did it violate it. Explain that to me. I asked using several different scenarios but you are still ignoring my actual question.
Then just to reiterate, I responded to each mention in the guideline:
Then just to reiterate, I responded to each mention in the guideline:
Point by point with section 10:
1. Content that promotes, incites, or glorifies hatred, violence, racial, sexual or religious intolerance or promotes organizations with such views, including, but not limited to, content that depicts child abuse and exploitation? No. Curt, the MC, is full of anger, hate and blames everyone for how his life is, and does commit violence, but he winds up a double-murderer and back in prison. Hardly a glorification of what he's done.
2. Contains pornography? Not unless you consider man on man sex pornographic. I describe what happens on the same level as Judith Krantz, who made novels about male on female sex and shopping bestsellers.
3. Glorifies rape? No. The victims of the rapes in this book are psychologically damaged. One winds up on suicide watch; the other collapses into a near catatonic state. Hardly a glorification.
4. Pedophilia? There is NO sex with anyone under the age of 18 in my book. But my bet is Ingram does distribute "Flowers in the Attic", which contains underage incest that leads to the birth of a child.
5. Promotes terrorism or bodily harm...? Nope. Not in the slightest.
6. ...as well as or other material that may be inappropriate or offensive, including book covers and book marketing materials. This is so vague it could be used to remove distribution of "The Rape of Nanking", by Iris Chang, which includes depictions of rape, torture, slaughter and destruction in copious amounts. Same for any books dealing with "The Rape of Lucretia", the story of a noblewoman who is raped and commits suicide, leading to the foundation of the Roman Republic. Shakespeare even wrote a poem about it, and Benjamin Britten developed a famous opera. Is that inappropriate or offensive?
Which one of these caused Ingram’s puritans to drop distribution of "How to Rape a Straight Guy" after 8 years of distributing it?
Kyle
I am getting a goddamned answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment