|
The Trials & Tribulations Of Publishing A Book Attacking
Porn
by Dr. Diana Russell
|
I have come to dislike
talking about the effects of pornography with people who have not seen it for
themselves, or whose exposure to it has been so minimal that they equate it
withpictures of nude people in sexual encounters. Many
women who have seen pornography and who find it upsetting, try to discount
their distress with a "boys will be boys" shrug. It is no
wonder that discussions on this controversial topic frequently descend into
verbal combat completely removed from the reality of the degrading portrayals
of women featured in pornography.
Many women become convinced
about the harmful effects of pornography after seeing visual examples of this
material. I therefore decided to produce a book that would include over
100 examples of pictorial pornography together with a summary of some of the
key scientific research on the impact of pornography on men's rape-related
attitudes and behavior. However, because I was unwilling to request the
permission of the pornographers who hold the copyright to reprint these
pictures, I was unable to find a publisher who was willing to risk being sued
for breach of the copyright laws. Hence, I decided to publish the
illustrated version of this book myself, titling it Against Pornography:
The Evidence of Harm.
After the second printing of
Against Pornography had almost sold out in January 1997, and after two
book distributing company stopped distributing this book, I decided to do a
second edition that would be acceptable to a mainstream publisher. This
meant that I would have to substitute descriptions of the pornographic
pictures for the pictures themselves. Publication of this revised
edition by Sage Publications titled Dangerous Relationships: Pornography,
Misogyny and Rape, does not, however, herald the demise of Against
Pornography. I will keep this book in print for readers who believe
as I do that it is important to see the actual pornographic pictures.
Despite the unwillingness of regular distribution companies to distribute
Against Pornography, it will continue to be sold.
History
Why I Didn't Seek Permission to Reprint Pornography
There were several reasons
for my reluctance to request permission to include pornographic pictures from
the pornographers who hold the copyright for this material. I didn't
want to support the pornography industry by paying them to reprint their
pictures. I also knew that the total cost of the permissions would be
way beyond my means. In 1992, Playboy magazine, for example, charged
$200 per cartoon for one-time use in a North American publication and $300 for
worldwide use in the English language. Penthouse's fee in 1996 for
one-time use of a cartoon in North American and British editions of the book
was $350. Since 21 of the 111 pictures are cartoons, the
cost for obtaining permission to publish them at approximately $325 per
cartoon (the average of the two fees in 1996) would have been about $6,825.
Other pictorials would undoubtedly have cost more.
In addition, I very much
doubted that the pornography copyright holders for materials included in Against
Pornography would be willing to grant the appropriate
permission-to-reprint documents for a book whose purpose was to criticize
their materials and point out its harmfulness to women and children. Most
pornographers hate feminists, particularly anti-pornography feminists.
This is what Playboy owner Hugh Hefner has been quoted as saying about feminists to his staff, for example:
| These chicks are our natural enemy .... It
is time we do battle with them.... What I want is a devastating
piece that takes the militant feminists apart. |
Furthermore, even had
I been willing and able to pay for reprint rights, these were frequently
unobtainable. In 1992, Hustler magazine, for example, after several
cagey responses to questions about their permission policy in 1993, finally
divulged that they had a blanket policy of denying all requests to reprint
their materials. In 1996, Roberta Harmes, my research assistant, twice
faxed a formal letter to Hustler asking them to explain their policy regarding
permission to reprint. Despite Hustler's silence, she sent a third
letter in which she pretended I wanted permission to reprint one of their
cartoons and two of their pictorials in Dangerous Relationships.
Once again, Hustler failed to respond.
Maria Rothenberg, the photo
rights and permissions representative at Penthouse in 1993, was also wary and
refused to provide information in writing on this magazine's permissions
policy. The rights and permissions administrator at Playboy magazine
that same year was more communicative, delineating the following Catch-22
policy for granting or refusing permission to reprint:
| We cannot consider permission to reprint
Playboy material in any publication until we first see a copy of the
publication making the request... If you are asking to include
our material within a book, you must first have found a publisher as
Playboy does not grant permission to individual authors of a
work. |
So, while Playboy requires authors
to have a contract with a publisher before they will consider granting
permission to reprint their material, publishers typically require authors to have obtained such permissions, or to have sound reasons
for believing that they will be both granted and affordable before they will
offer them a contract. Confidence that permissions
would be forthcoming would certainly have been
inappropriate in my case.
Both Playboy and Penthouse
reported in 1996 that they do not have a blanket permission policy for
cartoons, pictorials or articles; they handle permission requests on a case by
case basis. When Harmes feigned interest in reprinting
four Playboy cartoons in Dangerous Relationships, Marcia Terrones, the
Rights and Permissions Manager, replied:
|
Given the title of the book ... we're afraid the
intended use could be
derogatory to Playboy. As a result we can not grant permission.
(September 12, 1996)
|
Rothenberg, still the Penthouse permissions rep in 1996, told Harmes that our
request for permission was unlikely to be granted -- presumably for the same
reason that Playboy declined our request. However, it turned out that
Penthouse was willing to sell us permission to reprint a cartoon -- perhaps
because of their financial problems. With regard to the two pornographic
pictures photographed by Akira Ishigaki that we said we wanted to reprint,
Rothenberg reported that Penthouse could not forward our permission request to
him because the magazine had no contract with him (personal communication,
September 11, 1996).
Aside from Playboy,
Penthouse, and Hustler, many of the hard-core pornography magazines whose
material I wished to include in Against Pornography, were impossible to
trace. Most of them were probably defunct by 1993, or appeared under new
titles. Indeed, it may well have been impossible to track down most of
them even at the time of their publication. Had I been able to locate
them, it is virtually certain that their response to my request for reprint
rights would have been substantially more negative than I experienced with
Playboy and Hustler. Many of the pornographers who publish hardcore
magazines operate underground out of fear of prosecution. Some of them
deliberately avoid dating their magazines to protect themselves from
prosecution for illegally using women under 18 years of age. Failure to
date a publication also prolongs its apparent currency.
Permission to reprint was
not obtainable in other cases because some of the pictures that I selected for
inclusion in Against Pornography from the pornography collection I had acquired in the course of my anti-porn work, as well as the
collections of other anti-pornography activists were missing information on
the sources and/or dates of publication. Because the purpose of this
book was to enable readers to see for themselves the degradation and abuse of
women reflected in these materials, the dates, sources, and the country of
origin of the pictures are not important.
Nevertheless, I did my best
to fill in the missing information on sources. Calls to Penthouse
magazine proved helpful in some instances. A Hustler magazine
spokesperson, on the other hand, maintained that it would take weeks of labor
to locate the publication dates of the visuals I sent to her. The task
of completing source information was not made easier by the fact that public
libraries rarely house materials which are considered pornographic.
In short, it is clear that
it would have been impossible to obtain all the reprint permissions required
even had I been willing to pay, and able to afford, the high fees required for them. It was because I believed so strongly that an
informed evaluation of pornography would be greatly facilitated by seeing
examples of actual pictures, and that a critique without the visual evidence would be far less effective, that I decided
to publish my manuscript myself. This decision was not made lightly.
The Risks for Failing to Obtain Permissions
I consulted several
attorneys about the likelihood that I would be sued if I self-published
Against Pornography. Their opinions on this question varied greatly.
The only attorney who actually examined my manuscript thought that the risk was
considerable, not only because of the copyright laws but also because he
believed that at least two passages in which I point an accusing finger at Larry Flynt, the publisher of Hustler
magazine, and Bob Guccione, the publisher of Penthouse, could be regarded as
defamatory. He therefore advised me to delete or change these passages.
I commented that it would be a cop out to omit the names of these two
notorious pornographers just as it would be a cop out to fail to mention
Hitler when talking about those responsible for the Holocaust. Despite
my defiant words, I had many sleepless nights worrying about whether I might
lose my house -- my only significant material asset. But to give up this
project out of fear of being sued by pornographers felt like allowing them to defeat and censor me.
I must also admit that my
delusions of grandeur about what Against Pornography might achieve also
played a role in my willingness to risk so much. I pictured a host of
public figures opening the book and feeling horrified by the misogynist
pictures, impressed by the research evidence on their harmful effects, and
convinced by my theory that pornography is a significant cause of rape. I felt confident that some
of the producers of the most prominent media programs, even if motivated by
their lust for sensationalism, would want to cover or debate my book. I
fantasized about Against Pornography becoming a catalyst for replacing the
belief of many educated people that pornography is harmless, with knowledge of
its destructive effects, including its promotion of violence against women and
children. As I discuss later, this fantasy was not realized with the
first edition of this book.
My insomnia was cured by a
few conversations with Stephen Fishman, an attorney and author of an important
legal text on copyright law (1996), who believed that the publication of Against Pornography would not violate this law -- for the
following reasons. First, the reprinted pictures are part of a critical
scholarly work that was written for educational purposes. Second, the
book is not competitive with the publications of the pornographers whose
pictures I reprinted. Third, since several of the sources (e.g., Hustler and
Playboy) had policies that would have caused the owners of these
magazines to deny me permission to reprint their material had I sought it, I
was legally entitled to exercise my right to free speech by disregarding their
restrictive rules. The fact that I believed that showing the actual
pictures was necessary to effectively communicate my criticism of them and
their effects constitutes the rationale for this entitlement.
Fishman also warned me,
however, that regardless of my legal right to reprint this copyrighted
material, the pornographers might still decide to sue me. Since it would
cost me tens of thousands of dollars to mount an effective legal defense,
being sued would have been financially disastrous for me. My anxiety
about this possibility was greatly alleviated when I decided that a suit
against me by pornographers for publishing "their" pictures in Against
Pornography without their permission would probably generate enough
support for me to organize a defence committee to raise the money needed to
fight them in court. I also imagined that a good attorney might
volunteer her or his services or be willing to work for a limited fee.
This wishful fantasy has lasted to this day.
The Trials and Tribulations of Self-Publishing
This was my first experience
in self-publishing, and I hope it will be my last. I expressed the
opposite hope in the preface to Against Pornography. I was unaware when
I wrote about this of the many additional frustrations and
disappointments that lay ahead. On the eve of my departure to fulfill a
one-year research obligation in Cape Town, South Africa, in September 1992, a printing company in Oakland, California, reneged on
their agreement to print Against Pornography for fear of being sued.
This predicament led me to hire Comp-Type, a regular publishing house in Fort
Bragg, California, to serve as a kind of publishing broker.
Despite the know-how and
contacts with printers that this publisher had developed over the years, they
had to contact approximately 60 printers before finding one that was willing
to print my manuscript for a reasonable price.
Approximately 50 of the printers turned down the job because the management or
the workers objected to the pornographic pictures, or because the management
feared their clients would object. (Most of the less expensive printers
are based in the mid-West, which is more anti-pornography than the East and
West coasts). A few other printers rejected the job out of fear of being
sued for breach of copyright laws. CompType rejected a handful of others
on my behalf because they were too expensive.
The reaction of the 50
printers stunned me, and still bewilders me. The United States is a
major producer and consumer of pornography and publishes millions of copies of
porn magazines every year. Yet CompType had an almost impossible time
trying to get my very explicitly anti-pornography text out into the world.
Since I was paying them a high hourly fee for the work they did for me, the
costs of this project kept escalating alarmingly.
Against Pornography's formal
publication date was delayed until my return from South Africa in February
1994. Although CompType assisted me with the early phase of book
distribution as well as preliminary marketing efforts, I became responsible
for the distribution, publicity, mail order sales and book keeping after the
book was published. These activities took a heavy toll on me in terms of
time and stress.
Although I received many
reports from individuals of the powerful impact Against Pornography has
made on their opinions about pornography, my expectations of the willingness
of public figures to endorse this book turned out to be extremely unrealistic.
The uncorrected galleys were sent to at least 26 public figures requesting
their endorsement of the book. Only Gloria Steinem, Phyllis Chesler, and
Tipper Gore did so. Two other positive responses were forthcoming: Noam
Chomsky said that he would like to endorse the book if he could find the time,
and Ralph Nader, although he declined to write an endorsement, offered to help
publicize the book.
Silence was, however, the
most common response. Several people said they did not do book
endorsements. A surprising number claimed never to have received the
book, particularly those with large staffs. Presumably, there were some
incorrect addresses, or unreliable middle people who did not forward the book
to the appropriate person.
Those who responded
negatively to my request include a spokesperson for Patricia Ireland, the
President of the National Organization for Women, who said that national NOW
does not take a stand on pornography, and Jody Newman, the Executive Director
of the National Women's Political Caucus, who said that pornography is out of
her organization's sphere of action.
A spokesperson for Barbara
Walters reported that making endorsements is against ABC's policy.
Writing blurbs was also against the policy of Senator Barbara Boxer, Senator
Pat Schroeder, and Toni Morrison. Other individuals who declined to
endorse the book without mentioning a policy against doing so, include Senator
Biden (Chairperson of the Violence Against Women bill), Johnetta Cole, Anita
Hill, Oprah Winfrey, and Marg Fong Yu (Secretary of State, California).
One well-known woman, who will remain nameless, thanked me for sending her my
novel, but said she didn't have time to comment on it!
My anticipation of intense
media interest in Against Pornography was equally disappointing.
Although this book was well reviewed in a few places, not one of the big TV
shows was willing to cover it. I have been on literally hundreds of TV
and radio shows over the years in connection with my other books, my political
activism, and my expertise on sexual violence. I have rarely experienced
such a resounding silence in response to a book that I have actively tried to
promote. Just getting Against Pornography reviewed in my local
newspaper (Holt, San Francisco Chronicle, 1994) took umpteen calls, guilt
tripping, arm twisting, and luck. One astonishing explanation for the
initial decision not to review my book was the claim that it had been done
before! This, of course, was absolutely untrue.
I was well aware at the time
of publication that a feminist anti-pornography stance was extremely unpopular
in the United States. I had been unable to find a publisher in the
United States who was willing to publish my first book on
pornography in 1993, an edited volume entitled Making Violence Sexy:
Feminist Views on Pornography. This project had to be dropped for
well over a year because U.S. publishers equated an anti-pornography stance
with being pro-censorship -- even though the final section of the book was
devoted to anti-pornography feminist actions none of which advocated
censorship.
The way Making Violence
Sexy came to be published in this country was entirely fortuitous.
The division of Pergamon Press that was situated in Oxford, England, the only
publisher I was able to interest in this book. They agreed to publish it
as part of their Athene series of radical feminist books. Pergamon later
sold this series to Teachers College Press in New York.
Being against pornography
became especially unfashionable in the liberal publishing world after the
Final Report of the Attorney General's Commission on Pornography was published
in 1986. Even the commission was unable to find a mainstream publisher
for its final report.
Although right-wing people
generally take an anti-pornography stance, they do not agree with feminists'
criticism of pornography (for example, see Cline, 1974). While they
object to pictures of sex and nudity, we oppose pornography's
abusive representations of human beings, particularly women and children.
Liberals and left-wingers
are far more disparaging than right-wingers of feminists' anti-pornography
politics. Most liberal and left women seem to have bought the view of
their ideological brothers that pornography is just
"harmless fantasy" that allegedly reduces rape and sexual abuse
because it is cathartic i.e., male viewers get rid of their sexually
aggressive urges by masturbating to pornography. Far from being
harmlessly cathartic, pornography increases male aggression and willingness to
rape and act out other forms of sexual assault and abuse.
The American Civil Liberties
Union is a prime example of a liberal organization that has increasingly
become a watchdog for the interests of pornographers (for substantiation of
this point, see Dworkin, 1988; and Dworkin and MacKinnon, 1993). Nadine
Strossen, the current President of the ACLU, spends most of her book Defending
Pornography arguing against censorship, claiming that Catharine MacKinnon and
Andrea Dworkin and all the rest of us anti-porn feminists are virulent advocates of it.
She frequently refers to us by derogatory names such as "the feminist
procensorship movement" (1995, p. 15); "MacDworkinites" (as if
we are all clones of Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon); "anti-sex
crusaders," and "pornophobic feminists" (1995, p. 20).
Her ally, Marcia Pally refers to us as "right-wing feminists" (1994,
p. 16).
Although censorship appears
to be Strossen's favorite word, she never even attempts to define it.
From the examples she cites, though, her definition appears indistinguishable
from what most people would consider the exercise of their free speech rights
to protest. For example, Strossen criticizes what she calls "the
censorial impact of such coercive tactics as boycotts" (1995, p. 210).
However, Strossen does not
just defend pornography in her book; she enthusiastically celebrates it.
In her chapter on "positive aspects of pornographic imagery (pp.
161-178)," she includes testimonials by other women on the joys of
pornography. She quotes the following passage by Ann Snitow, an editor of the
book, Power and Desire (1983):
| Think, for example, of all the pornography about
servants fucking mistresses, old men fucking young girls, guardians
fucking wards. Class, age, custom -- all are deliciously sacrificed,
dissolved by sex. (Cited in Strossen, 1995, p. 176) |
Not surprisingly, Strossen's
feminist-bashing book was enthusiastically feted by the media, most of whose
representatives share her misrepresentations of the views of anti-porn
feminists.
The point I wish to make
here is that despite my awareness that the climate of public opinion was, and
still is, very unfavorable to a critical feminist analysis of pornography, I
foolishly imagined that the combination of visual evidence, critical
commentary, and scientific evidence in Against Pornography would dispel
the objections of many left-wing and liberal individuals who read and examined this book.
On the other hand, I assumed, correctly, I believe, that right-wing people
would reject the book simply because of the pornographic pictures included. This did not concern me because my
goal was to reach more politically progressive individuals, including the
large number of pro-pornography feminists.
Only about 2,000 copies of Against
Pornography have been sold or given away as of this writing. I still
believe that this book has the potential to have an enormous impact on
people's thinking about pornography. However, I have not been
willing to keep interrupting my other research and writing projects to
continue trying to promote this book.
Postscript
I decided to tell my story
about the trials and tribulations of publishing Against Pornography
because I want people to know the struggle it takes in these times for
anti-porn feminists to publish their work. I submitted it to Merge
Magazine because representatives of the publisher for whom I had written this
account, deleted it as inappropriate for my revised book Dangerous
Relationships.
Anti-porn feminists are
often censored by so-called pro-free speech advocates in the name of their
anti-censorship stand. (They refuse to believe that we are not in favor of
censoring porn.) This Alice in Wonderland logic silences many of us, or
forces us to make super-human efforts to be heard. Despite my having
written, co-authored, edited or co-edited 15 books, and despite having earned
an outstanding reputation for my research and many publications on sexual violence, I cannot count on
being able to find a publisher for my anti-porn work. Publishers are
among the elite minority who defend pornography in the name of free speech.
I currently have a
half-finished manuscript on child pornography which follows the same model as Dangerous
Relationships, i.e., examples of child pornography available in popular
porn magazines are described and analyzed, my own theory on the relationship
between pornography and child sexual abuse is presented and explained along
with the scientific evidence that supports it. It includes an extensive
analysis of child porn on the Internet. This book will never see the
light of day if I am unable to find a publisher for it. This is one of
many ways in which we are the ones who are censored in this misogynist
porn-saturated society.
Postscript
In October 2000, I finally
obtained a publisher (Routledge) for this book on child pornography as a cause
of child sexual abuse.
Dr Diana Russell's book Against Pornography is available by contacting her at: Russell
Publications, 2018 Shattuck Ave, Berkeley, CA 94704. Against Pornography is $12.95 (plus $3.50 shipping). You can also contact her at: russell@mills.edu. She is currently working on a book about the easy
availability and effects of child porn.