Red Sugar.
Posted by pittgirl on 23 Apr 2008 | Tagged as: Annoying Burghers, Downtown happenings
I shall warn you now that if you’ve been in agreement with my view on controversial subjects up until now, that this might be the post that makes you go, “dumb bitch.”
I’ll accept that.
Here’s the deal. You’ve heard of Joseph-Beth Booksellers over there on the South Side, right? Well, they’re involved in a little disagreement with Jan Beatty, a poet from Wilkinsburg, over a reading she wishes to do from her latest volume of poetry Red Sugar– a collection of poems with an erotic bent to them.
At first Joseph-Beth didn’t want her to read there unless they could pick which poems she could read. She cried “censorship.”
Joseph-Beth was worried that the children in the store would hear her over the microphone as she read her poems. So they offered her two other choices. Do a book signing without a reading. Or do a booksigning and a reading but without the microphone.
Beatty still cried “censorship” and refused their offer.
Miss Beatty? Do you even know what “censorship” means? Because I thought it meant the suppression or deletion of speech or writing.
Is someone from Jo-Beth burning your books? Is someone from Jo-Beth refusing to put it into print because of its explicit nature? Is someone taking a big black Sharpie and blacking out the words that offend? Is someone holding a hand over your mouth?
No. They’re saying hey, we’ll be happy to let you read whatever poem you want if you just do it quietly so that the children over there reading a tension-filled book about whether or not Winnie the Pooh will ever find that lost jar of honey will not have their ears bombarded with poems of sexuality and violence, which is exactly how you yourself described this book. This way, unless they stand near you and hang on your every word, they won’t hear what the critics described as “unflinching, vulgar” or “a gorgeous sexual book.” Or “she writes about women who are subjected to the worst vulgarities and subjugations, and the often furious way they respond.”
“I don’t understand them. I like the store and they say they support writers. Now they are censoring me.”
Asking you to speak quietly is NOT CENSORSHIP, you self-important windbag.
If you’re disagreeing with me so far, let me ask you, if you invited Ms. Beatty into your home and your children or nieces or nephews were in the room and Ms. Beatty began describing a sexual encounter she had the other night, would you not believe it to be your right and perfectly acceptable to say, “Hey, Jan. Can we take this into the kitchen? Little ears …” Of course you would! It’s NOT CENSORSHIP!
And do NOT expect me to change my views just because they let Ron Jeremy speak in the past. Is it at all possible, Burghers, that perhaps they learned their lesson from that and said, you know what? Let’s not broadcast this stuff next time.
It’s within Jo-Beth’s rights to determine who will speak in their store. It is within Ms. Beatty’s right to protest and feel upset about it. And it is within my right to tell Ms. Beatty that she’s being highly unreasonable and if she would just get her head out of her ass, she’d see that.
Beatty added that Joseph-Beth is presenting best-selling author David Sedaris next month, “and he’s pretty raunchy. Nobody’s telling him he can’t read there.”
Jan, are you even listening? They said you can read there! Why isn’t that getting through to her?
“My position is that the store needs to contact me to apologize and to let me read with no strings attached,” Beatty said.
Oh, for the love of God. Stop being a spoiled child who is throwing a breath-holding temper tantrum because she wanted the Sally Poops-a-Lot doll and instead her Mommy bought her the Frankie Pees-A-Lot. Stop pouting. Stop holding your breath until you get an apology that you do not deserve. Go do the reading, do it without the microphone out of respect for the fact that you don’t own the frickin’ store, and maybe just maybe you’ll win you some new fans. And maybe I’ll be one of them.
Okay, Burghers, you know how much I value your opinions and you have changed my mind in the past, you have. I gotta tell you, I really tempered my reaction here because If I’m being honest, my first reaction was to tell Ms. Beatty to take the microphone and shove it up her ass. But I didn’t. I totes took the high road, eh?
I’m completely open as to why you think my viewpoint is erroneous. Just play nice. Instead of writing, “PittGirl, you are a dumb bitch.” you can write, “PittGirl, with all due respect, you are a dumb bitch. Won’t you kindly shove it up YOUR ass.”
KTHXBAI.
119 Comments »
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:22 am 1.Karen said …
PittGirl, you are right. An individual’s rights only go as far as the point where they infringe upon another’s individual’s rights. While I might be interested in hearing/reading/buying such a book, I certainly don’t believe it’s anyone else’s right to thrust such material on my children. I say she should take her whining ass home and hope she finds an audience for her book on Amazon. JoBeth is trying to help a local author, and she’s spitting in their face. I think it’s time they rescind the invitation they made and find another more grateful recipient of their generosity. But, they should still let her have a ride on that microphone, as you suggested!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:25 am 2.Ant Annie said …
Sorry, PittGirl, you’re no dumb biotch. I totally agree. I’d tell her where she could put that microphone so the kidlets wouldn’t have to hear… There’s censorship, and then there’s common courtesy. She can write and read whatever she wants, but it doesn’t have to be broadcast for all to hear. I might enjoy a little erotica in my reading material every now and then, but I don’t have to read it so everyone around me gets to hear it.
Maybe she’s just making a fuss to sell more books?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:26 am 3.parking chair said …
Are you afraid she might talk about Santonio Holmes?
Seriously, whoever stole the Pirates ability to have a winning season also snatched away our common sense. And no, I didn’t mean “snatched” in any sort of vulgar way. I am not a poet.
If I were the bookstore, I’d just say “oh, never mind.” It’s not like they’re hosting Walt Whitman or anything.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:28 am 4.lolo said …
I agree - I think she’s over-reacting and blowing things up. Is this the same poet with the weekly show “Prosody” on WYEP? Hmmm.
Couldn’t Joseph Beth had made this and a lot of other potential ’sensitive to young ears’ speakers more comfortable by having a room (with doors) for this kind of presentation? Or maybe after-hours readings?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:30 am 5.JP said …
Right on PG. What a narcissist this one is. Like not being allowed to use a microphone is censorship. Probably just tryig to drum up some controversy to move some more books
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:34 am 6.BBM said …
The only dumb bitch is Ms. Beatty. Sadly, she’s going to get way more attention that she deserves just because she’s a whiny dumb bitch who somehow got the attention of the media.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:37 am 7.Mrs Pitsberger said …
I wonder if it ever occurred to her that maybe there are some BIG ears who don’t want to hear her poetry. Like my
80-year-old grandma for instance. And maybe she should consider whether she’d want HER children/nieces/nephews/whoever to hear it. Get over it already! God, I hate stupid.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:38 am 8.Norman Huelsman said …
If Jan checks this blog post. She should read here: http://cluberoticapittsburgh.com. I don’t think she’ll have any censorship issues.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:40 am 9.Ms. Caroline said …
Aren’t all poets self-important windbags? Oh no, she went there, yes she did!
I don’t “get” poetry. And erotic poetry? No doubt I’d understand that even less. Sounds to me like stuff taken from the bathroom wall. Or something that has Fabio on the cover.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:41 am 10.KC said …
Jan Beatty read some poems on WYEP back in the late 80s or early 90s that had some of the forbidden words of broadcasting in them. It was during a time when the U.S. Senate was focusing on broadcasters saying naughty words. Poor ol’ WYEP didn’t want to spend its donor’s money on attorneys, so it told Jan to cool it - and she raised the censorship flag then too.
This is a habit with Ms. Beatty, no?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 9:49 am 11.Pittsburgh Tom (in NJ) said …
Censorship is when the government says no one can read, watch, or listen to something.
When a dominating force in a marketplace, like walmart, uses it’s power to force changes to a book, music, or movie, that is also a form of censorship.
A book store deciding to control what what is said inside their bookstore is their right. And the author has the right to take her book elsewhere. She doesn’t have a right to speak in that specific store so any conditions put upon her speaking is not censorship.
Now if she wanted to stand outside the store and read aloud from the book and someone tried to stop her, then that might be a different story.
I say, if it doesn’t hurt them financially, the bookstore should not only not let her read, but they shouldn’t even carry her book.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:03 am 12.Burgher in Maine said …
Jeez. If this was a publicity stunt it sure is working. She just got mentioned on one of the burgh’s most popular blogs. I know who she is now and will go and read some her poems online. Thanks Pittgirl!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:07 am 13.Judge Rufus Peckham said …
We are stranded in an era of the perpetually indignant, the chronically offended, where self-proclaimed victims hide behind shibboleths of political correctness, such as “censorship,” or “academic freedom,” in an attempt to justify some supposed outrage or other that they’ve manufactured. And frequently, of course, these purported injured parties don’t care a whit that the thing they are crying “censorship” over would be an affront to someone else’s sensibilities.
I’m with you on this.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:08 am 14.Amanda said …
DAVID SEDARIS! I’m so there.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:09 am 15.spoon said …
me thinks that Jan Beatty needs to have the “Annoying Burgher” certificate sent to her.
Just like everything else in life, if you want to do business you need to play by the rules. If you don’t like the guild lines offered then leeeeeaaaaavvvvvvve. All you’re doing is trying to drum up some attention that will backfire miserably.
If you’re that hellbent on reading at J&B go park your butt outside and read at the top of your lungs. Just let me know when so I can come by and sit on your lap… wearing only a fig leaf… awww yeah. There’s your visual for the day.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:09 am 16.brainlint said …
I don’t have to take the high road…Ms. Beatty should shove the microphone up her ass. She should be thankful that the bookstore even carries her book. It is a business. The main concerns of that business is to make money. And if they think that Ms. Beatty will drive away their customers with children, then they have the choice to tell her (quietly) to shove it up her ass.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:10 am 17.Gunn Lino said …
PG your not the Dumb Bitch here, Ms All Too Full of Herself is!
She’s a fucking nutcase who simply should not be allowed to read a phone book let alone her bullshit poetry.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:14 am 18.Pat said …
PG - completely agree. You have to wonder what the motivation would be for someone to read this stuff willingly around children so they could hear it. Pretty irresponsible.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:19 am 19.Erin said …
These comments, especially parking chair’s, are cracking me up. I have nothing to add except that I totally agree with you as well, PG.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:22 am 20.NoSide15212 said …
Agree PG. Sick and tired of artists/writers/actors masquerading as would-be constitutional scholars, running the censorship flag up the pole anytime anyone objects to their broadcasting in the public square the word F*$k. You wouldn’t say it so I will: “Jan –take your book and your feigned artistic indignation and shove them both up your ass.”
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:30 am 21.Mike S. said …
Even if she were completely excluded from the place there wouldn’t be an issue. The private bookstore has the right to exclude.
“Cram it up your cram-hole, LeFleur [Jan Beatty]“
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:33 am 22.jakc said …
I’m with you, Amanda. That’s really all I took away from that PG article. Does that make me a philistine?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:43 am 23.unsatisfied said …
maybe ms. beatty could shove that mic up her ass, then write an erotic poem about it.
I think maybe she and cathy baker knoll need to get together — they are some crazy beeyotches!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 10:56 am 24.bucdaddy said …
Journalists in places like Cuba and China — more specifically, journalists in prisons in places like Cuba and China — could perhaps inform Ms. Beatty what censorship really is all about, and what an assmunch she is. That’s if I believed her capable of learning anything.
Bravo, PG.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:04 am 25.Stasia said …
“Don’t care how
I want it now
Don’t care how
I want it now”
This does sound a bit more like a self-important’s temper tantrum than a legitimate artistic censorship concern, doesn’t it?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:13 am 26.Zsa said …
I agree with Mrs Pitsberger. I don’t want to be walking thru a bookstore and all of a sudden hear someone reading out loud about their lovah’s embrace or something of the like.
I mean, if you see a sign outside that says “Ron Jeremy reading tonight”, most people KNOW who that is and will turn around & leave if they don’t want to hear it - but for someone lesser known, how are you supposed to know?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:18 am 27.John said …
I’m with you, PG. We need to get the wahhhhhmbulance for this self-important beyotch. Censorship = no, you can’t read your smutty poetry here, not can you keep it down so the 10 year olds reading Captain Underpants don’t go asking mommy and daddy about those naughty words they heard at the bookstore.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:29 am 28.RavishingRick said …
Your really smart PittGirl!!!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:30 am 29.spoon said …
I really hope she has a big ass with as much stuff as yinz want to shove up there.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:31 am 30.Rick said …
I’d let her read only if she replaced every sexual term with “donkey omelets”. Seriously…she needs to get a life and off of her high-horse.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:35 am 31.Becky said …
Amen..she is the stupid biotch
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:37 am 32.BobM said …
As with the other commenters, I think Pitt Girl speaks with great wisdom.
One can only suppose Jan Beatty created this faux controversy for the sake of some publicity. If she actually believes her claim of censorship, then she’s the “dumb bitch.”
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:44 am 33.Eileen said …
I respect her right to be there, she has to respect my right to be there as well. I don’t want to hear that crap if I’m in there say, looking to buy a new Vera Bradley purse.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:47 am 34.Ex-Pat Pittsburgh Girl said …
Amen PittGirl. You got it 100% right. Not a big poetry fan to begin with and this just does nothing to add to my desire to even explore it. Here’s my favorite poem. I learned it in first grade and it’s stuck with me since.
I never saw a purple cow
I never hope to see one
But I can tell you any how
I’d rather see than be one.
The end.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:49 am 35.Brian said …
People such as Ms. Beatty need to learn what censorship means in much the same way most gun-toters need to examine what the Second Amendment really offers. Crying censorship is an easy way for her to blandly and non-desriptively protest against a book store that a.) gave her a forum and b.) is selling her book because she can’t really think of an actual good reason. But crying censorship is good for stirring emotions, so you know, most people don’t know what it means anyway. She needs to shut up and go away and realize that maybe when she sells as many books as David Sedaris, she can put her self-righteous, probably overrated ass in his category. I just can’t believe what an idiot she sounds like.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:53 am 36.Brian said …
Let me add something that makes Ms. Beatty’s comments even more frightening. This from the Trib:
“I was trying to get inside the body, which was kind of impossible,” says Beatty, who lives in Regent Square and teaches poetry at the University of Pittsburgh.
Greeeeat. Teaches at Pitt. I can’t believe a college professor can be this clueless. Or wait. Maybe I can. Woah, higher learning!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:57 am 37.Christina said …
Am I going to be the only person here who doesn’t agree with PittGirl? So be it.
I think this entire situation is very dramatic, on both ends. It is a ridiculous thing that Joseph Beth isn’t allowing her to read whatever she wants out of her new poetry book. It’s poetry. Whatever she’s written that’s so erotic or violent is probably drenched in metaphor and isn’t entirely obvious and more than likely a child in the throes of seeking out his or her new Winnie The Pooh book wouldn’t have a clue what the lady was even talking about. I’m sure that on tv or even on the news every single day, kids are seeing more violence, sex, etc., than she can even describe in a poem.
Jan Beatty is being a bit of a dramatic, crybaby artist who wants attention, but really, what perfomer doesn’t want attention?
In any case, she shouldn’t have to read anything by a store that just wants watered-down selections. If the audience there wants her cut apart, censored poetry, then they probably aren’t seeking the real thing in the first place. She has the right not to read there and to be offended that they don’t want her there.
David Sedaris can be blatantly and overtly sexual with his readings and in his personality. The only reason they allowed either him or Ron Jeremy for that matter to read in their store is because they’re relatively well-known and are going to sell books. In those cases, their morals were pretty much shattered by the promise of money.
If this were another bigger city, would anyone care about this? No. She could march around a bookstore in Manhattan and say whatever she wants. But no, because this is a conservative, family town where things like erotic art are still frowned upon…we have entire articles in our city’s largest newspaper about them. Isn’t this all just kind of blown out of proportion? Is this really this big of a deal? Not at all. She’s reading poetry. It’s not like she’s going to be standing in front of the children’s book section having storytime with a Penthouse. But, what do I know.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 11:59 am 38.Sooska said …
She needs to meet up with Scott Paulsen’s old character JT:
A Poetry by JT.
“Shut up…I’m gon kill you.”
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:02 pm 39.Jen-nay said …
Why the violence? As I’m writing this, there are 25 comments above me, and 7 of them include references to violence against Beatty. Rape with a microphone, yeah, that’s about right for someone who wants to read some poetry.
I tried to write more, but it wouldn’t take, so here’s a link to my full response to the comments here:
http://heyheyjennay.blogspot.com/2008/04/quite-stir.html
(Christina, you’re not the only one!)
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:07 pm 40.bucdaddy said …
BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — A state Senate panel rejected a bill Tuesday that would make it a crime to wear one’s pants too low, even as Cajun-country towns around Louisiana have been banning saggy pants from their streets. …
Sen. Yvonne Dorsey said she disliked the look of baggy pants but wanted to defend the public’s right to wear their clothes as they wish.
“When we begin to take the freedom of speech away … I think we’re doing something that’s just not right,” said Dorsey, a Democrat.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:12 pm 41.bucdaddy said …
Jen-Nay, I think you miss the point, which is Ms. Beatty’s misuse of the concept of censorship. It’s in the same vein as the Nazi-fication of everything.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:15 pm 42.In Sewickley said …
She’s not overreacting, folks. This is a book store who claims to support writers, which would mean they support the creative thinking and free thoughts writers have. Yet they want to censor what this artist does in their store.
Technically, they have the right, yes. But, if they were to actually support writers they wouldn’t care what the content was about.
We shouldn’t shelter children from certain topics. Maybe the store should consider holding the event in the evening or when children won’t be around if they care that much.
My thing is this… you can’t encourage writers to be creative and then tell them they can’t be creative.
The author should yank her book from their shelves.
And… where will it end? Will a book on pro-choice be limited at J-B?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:27 pm 43.scottie said …
I’m with you, PittGirl, this woman is a pompous windbag. I write sh*t full of profanities, but would I let me 3 year old niece near it? NO. It’s not appropriate.
There’s a difference between censorship and assuring an age-appropriate audience.
You wouldn’t want a 6-year-old going to an NC-17 movie, and this is no different. Sheesh
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:28 pm 44.PAGirlinFL said …
PittGirl - thank you for posting about the poet who doesn’t get reality. I was beginning to think that my adopted home was the stupidest place in the world to live. Florida legislators are currently embroiled in consideration to make ‘truck nutz’ - you know the ‘donkey omelets’ that adolesence males (and some older) hang off their trailer hitches, illegal. Hello?
Foreclosures are out of control, taxes have skyrocketed, gas is approaching $4/gallon and these folks are offended by a couple of chunks of plastic hanging off trailer hitches….
The only solace in life right now is a trip to the ‘burgh next week - yippee!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:29 pm 45.back in the burgh said …
In Sewickley, “we shouldn’t shelter children from certain topics” - really?? So my six-year-old should be able to hear all about violent sex from some women he doesn’t know? I think that’s MY call as a parent … and I don’t think I should have to leave a family bookstore because of it. If they want to have her read, have a special ‘after hours’ event for adults only. But back to the original stupid comments - they’re not censoring her. They’re carrying her book in a full and complete version. They just don’t want it broadcast through the store. If I were them I’d just pull the book completely after all of this crap.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:51 pm 46.Sarah said …
I absolutely agree. Not that I really would have gone before, but I absolutely wouldn’t go now. Why would I? I can go play with spoiled kids if I want to see someone cry that much about not getting their way. And at least they make it cute.
I also agree with Mrs. Pitsberger - not that I’m “sexually repressed” or any of that crap, but it would be super awkward to be walking around there with a parent, or a child or, hmm a first date?
Not to mention the 12 year old side of me would bust out laughing at really inappropriate times.
Also - I agree that we shouldn’t shelter children from facts, you know, ones that aren’t necessarily DISTURBING to kids - or adults for that matter. But when the author herself describes it as an “unflinching VULGAR” book about “women who are subjected to the worst vulgarities and subjugations, and the often furious way they respond,” I don’t think she needs to be reading to the world.
We couldn’t play it on play it on the radio or daytime tv, could we? So why should she have free reign?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 12:53 pm 47.Jen-nay said …
back in the burgh, that is your right as a parent, but poetry readings are typically held at 8:00 p.m. or later. I don’t think there is a real threat to a child. How many children are running around a book store in the South Side after 8:00?
My understanding of In Sewickley’s comment was that “children,” as in young adults, the ages that might be out & about in the South Side in the evening, should have access to all types of art.
Why is there so much worry about three-year-olds & poetry? Do you take your three-year-olds to bookstores all that often? I can only hope that three-year-olds who are exposed to poetry at that early an age want to read poets like Beatty when they grow up. We should all be reading more.
Of the 45 commenters above me, how many of you have read a book of poetry in the last year?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:02 pm 48.Sparky said …
Jen-Nay: I have read several poetry books in the past year, and most certainly more books than you concerning civil rights and constitutional protections. So how about you scurry back to your own blog, with this piece of cheese in your mouth, and stop your ignorant and condescending tirade attacking the readers of this one.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:06 pm 49.Sparky said …
Oh and SNAP.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:27 pm 50.Mia` said …
Wow.
First, Pittgirl…gotta agree with you.
Asking her not read something with sexual content over the loud speaker is NOT censorship.
Second, Jen-nay, no I don’t read poety, I don’t care for it. I have been known to read erotic fiction, and enjoy it. That doesn’t mean I want it read to me over the loud speaker at the book store. If she’s reading it in one corner and I am on the other side of the store and can’t hear it…no problem. Why are HER rights to express herself more important than MY rights a.) not to be forced to hear it or b.) change my shopping plans to avoid it? Why are HER rights to be creative more important than the store’s rights to not offend other customers who may not want to hear it? Especially in the overly litigious society that we live in. They could very well be saving themselves from a lawsuit.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:31 pm 51.Puma said …
What’s the cost of this book? Unless it’s free, Ms. Beatty is censoring me from reading it by charging for it. Now, if she’s giving copies away, then she can stand on the corner of Grant & Sixth and enlighten me all day. Otherwise, I say CENSORSHIP!
I know how to stretch the meaning of a word too.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:39 pm 52.Ex-Pat Pittsburgh Girl said …
As a private business, the bookstore can set the terms of a promotional event. I don’t see this as them not supporting writers. They are offering to give her a forum to promote her book. As the private business owner, they do have the right to condition that promotion. She can either accept the terms of the promotional contract offer, make a counter offer or decline. Her book is still available for sale. It’s not like this is a public library. I might have more sympathy for the author in that situation.
In my opinion, I truly believe (as is my right) that this was just a giant publicity stunt on the part of the author. As the saying goes, all publicity, even bad, is good publicity.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:39 pm 53.Jen-nay said …
Why is a dissident voice that is asking questions of two previous commenters labeled a “tirade?” My question about how many poetry readers visit this blog was not intended to be condescending, only to point out that it seems like everyone is judging Beatty’s work without reading it, or reading similar contemporary poetry.
I will not scurry away from the big, bad regulars at The Burgh Blog.
Can’t we have a discussion? Can’t yinz acknowledge that there’s another side to the debate? It’s National Poetry Month, for crying out loud!
on 23 Apr 2008 at 1:45 pm 54.pittgirl said …
Jen-nay,
I am truly glad that you’ve offered a dissenting opinion because if we were all on here just going, DUMB BITCH! that would get boring.
So I’ve got a question for you. Jo-Beth isn’t saying she has to censor herself. They said she can read anything she damn well pleases, just that they don’t want to pipe it throughout the store so as not to offend other paying customers. Rather to just let her read to the people that want to hear it. Those people choosing to sit right in front of her.
Please explain to me how that is censorship.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:13 pm 55.Susan said …
Joseph Beth is a business. They can make whatever rules they want for their store. If an author doesn’t want to follow their rules, they don’t get to read inside the store. End of story, move on.
Plus, Ms. Beatty may be more businesswoman than she wants us to think — after all, “any publicity is good publicity.” Poet or not, both JB AND she want to sell books.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:17 pm 56.Sparky said …
Your “tirade” is condescending because: (1) you imply that the readers of this blog are not well read in poetry, and that if they were enlightened, like yourself, they might have a different opinion on the matter (2) you appear to be sarcastically utilizing pittsburghese to indicate that the reader (and me in particular) probably speak fluent Pittsburghese and therefore could not possibly be as cultured as yourself.
Dialogue is great…and I encourage great dialogue because from such comes truth, but the genesis of productive discourse is not condescension.
That said, JennyJenJen, would this be censorship if J’s resigned her to a private room for the reading?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:21 pm 57.Mitch Cumsteen said …
Jen-nay,
Isn’t writing “can’t yinz acknowledge there’s another side to the debate” really, really condescending? Isn’t that really just a more subtle approach than Christina used in saying we’re all backwards and ignert since we don’t trip all over ourselves to listen to and support poety that is sexual and violent?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:28 pm 58.Jen-nay said …
I don’t think that the alternative of reading without the speaker system is censorship. Joseph-Beth’s first reaction to select the poems for her read was censorship; she wasn’t able to read what she wanted to. She was “suppressed” and certain poems “deleted” from her reading list (quotes because those are words used in the Merriam Webster definition of “censoring”). It’s a valid opinion to think that she should accept the alternative & stop throwing around the issue of censorship. As a poet & someone who has given public readings (not on the same level as Beatty, but nonetheless), I don’t know how quickly I’d drop it either.
Beatty has done a lot of good for the Pittsburgh community. Check out her CV on her web site.
http://www.janbeatty.com/JanBeattyCV.pdf
She has worked with prisoners at Western Penitentiary and community members at the Wood St. Commons bridge building project. She has worked with primary and secondary school age students at the University of Pittsburgh’s Young Writer’s Institute and the International Poetry Forums Poets in Person program. She taught at The Ellis School. I’m guessing she knows how to interact in many different situations. A professional writer.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm 59.Jen-nay said …
Just saw the follow up comments on my use of “yinz.” I love Pittsburghese & use it frequently. I can’t prove that to you, but it wasn’t meant to be condescending. I actually find nothing ignorant about our dialect. It’s part of who we are.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:35 pm 60.joey said …
Jen-nay:
Your post was condecending as hell…not all of us here are yinzers, y’know. And even for those of us that are yinzers, just because they might not read poetry doesn’t deny them the ability to opine on the topic. Your logic is similar to those that say “You were never in the military, so you can’t opine on the war…”
And I gave your blog a hit to read your diatribe. It puts your posts here in context to know that you are a big Beatty fan, and are not looking at the issue impartially. Because if you look at it impartially, this is what it sounds like:
“Wahhh…I’m getting censored because I can’t recite one of my graphically sexual/violent poems in a store over a microphone…wahhh.”
P.S: Boycotting Jo-Beth is called “cutting off your nose to spite your face.” If you want to do that, knock yourself out.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:43 pm 61.joey said …
Joseph-Beth’s first reaction to select the poems for her read was censorship; she wasn’t able to read what she wanted to.
——-
No, Jen-nay…censorship would be if Jo-Beth wouldn’t stock her book. But drama sells books, right?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:48 pm 62.Sparky said …
Jen-nay–I believe you when you say you did not intend to be condescending…but your posts have appeared pedantic at best(which is something to consider in the future)–and i certainly never should have written that you should go home–not my place…nonetheless, i feel like you are grasping at the straw on a hula skirt with this one.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:54 pm 63.Dave in Pgh. said …
It’s not about censorship. It’s about money.
I worked in a book shop for ten years and we had our share of controversial moments like this. In the end, it was always about the bottom line. Store management is primarily concerned with how much money an event like a poetry reading will bring into the store — or how much money it will drive away.
To businesses, we are all just dollar signs. In Jan Beatty’s case, the bookseller saw her as a dollar sign with a minus sign in front.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:57 pm 64.Erin said …
I didn’t get the sense that anyone here is “judging Beatty’s work” whatsoever. Her community service work has nothing to do with this debate. Whether or not commenters on this blog read poetry also has nothing to do with this debate. This is about the definition of censorship.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 2:58 pm 65.BagitTagit said …
Why the F-ing? Why in front of the kid? All ya gotta do is say “earmuffs” to him, and you can say “Fuck, shit, bitch.”
Cock. Balls.
I’m just trying to make a point, Frank. You don’t have to celebrate it.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:10 pm 66.Puma said …
OK, I’d like to ask a simple question: What’s does the poet hope to gain by broadcasting this, that she can’t achieve through a simple non-broadcasted reading?
Maybe I just don’t understand, but I am trying… What is gained from having to explain to a 5 year old what they just heard, or, to apologize to my 78 year old grandmother what was just broadcast over the speaker? What thought-provoking message do you want to convey to these particular people?
I can understand her wanting to be heard, but JB is providing that, and they’re ALSO giving me a choice as to whether I want to hear this.
So what gives? Why is this so important that this is fitting material for everyone?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:12 pm 67.Puma said …
BagitTagit: Well said, well said.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:20 pm 68.Amanda said …
Brian, she’s actually a professor at Carlow. The Trib got it wrong.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:38 pm 69.JP said …
I take great offense at the use of yinz, in the future please be more cognizant of the many yunzers who also read this blog
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:48 pm 70.JP said …
BTW Jen-nay Joseph-Beth selecting the poems for this women to read is about as close to censorship(as it relates to the First Amendment which is what’s relevant here, not a dictionary definition) as KFC refusing to sell hamburgers. It’s a book store not a publicly owned library
on 23 Apr 2008 at 3:52 pm 71.Susan said …
Dave in Pgh got it exactly right. If you look at it from the store’s point of view, you realize that they must ultimately do what is in their best long-term interest. I think they really came up with a great compromise, which shouldn’t offend anyone.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 4:28 pm 72.Scott said …
Well said, PittGirl.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:06 pm 73.Dave said …
I couldn’t agree more with you.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:23 pm 74.Sooska said …
Guess Jen-nay doesn’t like MY free speech to say anything I want, wherever I want. Only HER free speech.
Never mind that a corporation or owner has no obligation to FREE SPEECH in their PRIVATE business. They can do essentially whatever the hell they wish. I doubt free speech ideals apply here. Beatty’s so-called acts of charity are irrelevant to this discussion (condecension, over simplification and attempts to divert the attention are symptoms of weak arguments.) Generosity does not automatically make one a valuable artist, engineer, athlete or street sweeper.
Don’t shop there if you dont like it. Let her go test out her poetry FREE SPEECH on a street corner dahntahn and see how far you get.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:32 pm 75.James Foreman said …
I can’t believe people are even arguing about this - it’s obviously not censorship.
But even so, I think we know PittGirl’s position on the smoking ban now, eh?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:33 pm 76.Dawn said …
It took me all day to formulate a response to this mess. I can honestly say, for once in my life, I’m just about “book dramaed” out for the day!
Here’s the news: This isn’t a case of censorship. No one is telling her she can’t publish or distribute her poetry. No one is telling her that she can’t read her poetry. No one is taking away her right to find appropriate venues in which to read said poetry. JB, as a private proprietor, has every right to be selective (based on content, and what the foresee their profit to be based on any author reading invitation they extend).
Consider: You own a bookstore geared toward YA and children’s books. An author who has written both YA novels and erotica comes out with a new book of erotica, but you would like him/her to read a popular YA novel you sell. You invite them to read at your store. Would you not consider it insane if this author then comes in and starts reading the erotica simply because it’s his/her latest book? It’s common sense.
As an author trying to sell poetry, you would think that she would be happy to get her work heard in any way possible (the poetry market is notoriously difficult to succeed in), and focus her racier readings on appropriate locations/gatherings where it will be greeted with more enthusiasm and personal profit. There’s nothing wrong with her reading her poetry there without a microphone at 8:00 in the evening.
It’s easy to yell “censorship” when dealing with genres that aren’t socially embraced openly, and were this a case where she organized the event in a location she paid for (or owned), and someone ran up and pulled the plug in the middle of her reading, I might see it differently. And as for the David Sedaris problem, while he may be racy, he also has some very public appropriate work to read, and he seems to have mastered the skill of “right place, right audience” — something Ms. Beatty should take into consideration.
As for an apology… I’d settle for a free copy of that book for making me think about this all day.
*See PG, I told you it wouldn’t be “harsh.”
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:38 pm 77.JP said …
Smoking ban is related to public health, not an issue of private property rights.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:56 pm 78.Mike S. said …
Christina,
1) Just because kids are exposed to violence doesn’t mean Beatty should have a right to do the same. The store [and parents] should be the ultimate decider. In addition, just because it may be “drenched in metaphor” doesn’t make it less of an issue.
2) Being a “crybaby artist” doesn’t give them the right to speak on private property in a manner unwanted by it’s owners. Sure, she has the right to be offended, but so does the store.
3) Sorry Pittsburgh isn’t liberal enough for you. If you want to be force fed material, move to NYC; you have that right. However, I stand by the store to allow or disallow any poetry it chooses, regardless of it’s economic worth.
Jen-Nay
1) Whatever your intention, your comment on poetic understanding implies a lack of knowledge of the matter.
2) Again, the store has the right to restrain readings in any way it wants, or exclude her altogether. This liberalistic view of the freedom of speech in private establishments is nothing more than a flawed fascist belief.
3) I agree with you on one point. Children aren’t likely to be on the South Side after 8pm. However, the store has the right to exclude for any reason or no reason at all (assuming its not discriminatory). If you would like a place with limited rights to exclusion, I’m near positive NJ has limited the rights of private establishments to exclude patrons.
4) Your best argument is that the store generally promotes creative writing. It appears they have gone back on their general viewpoint of acceptance of all types of work. That is a shame. A place that opens itself up to public discourse is a treasured commodity in the world.
Concluding: Ms. Beatty should know that she has every right to read her poetry aloud in the middle of Market Square. But when it comes to the private enterprise, sorry. I’m not about to agree and say that based on the store’s past acceptance, that they are required to permit her to speak.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 5:58 pm 79.TrolleyRider said …
Here’s an idea. Why doesn’t Beatty take the proceeds from this or one of her past books and open a bookstore. Here’s an even better idea…open the bookstore on the Hill to help with the revitalization.
Then she can read whatever she wants in a store where she has a right to set the rules. Until then, if you want to sell books in someone else’s store you have to be willing to do it under their rules.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 6:04 pm 80.PittCheMBA said …
I wonder if there is a poem about AssHat and his infamous shower pic?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 6:37 pm 81.bucdaddy said …
I still want to know when showing your buttcrack in public became a free-speech issue (see No. 40).
on 23 Apr 2008 at 6:37 pm 82.Ferngrower said …
There is no such thing as “bad publicity” especially if you are trying to sell a poetry book. Jan is no dummy.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 7:03 pm 83.Ex-Pat Pittsburgh Girl said …
My name is AssHat and I stand in my shower
Naked as a jay-bird, pretty like a flower
A friend to the ladies, I gots the power
I’m the future of the Steelers, just ask old coach Cowher
Ok, not much of a poet here, but I tried.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 7:14 pm 84.Lukey said …
I agree with PitGirl, Now can we all move forward?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 7:16 pm 85.returningBurgher said …
you nailed it. if I owned the shop, I’d retract my offer. they can’t do that much business from this woman. tell her to stick it.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 7:17 pm 86.Steeler_tom said …
Ok, ok,…. I was patronizing there a bit, (I just wanted a drink after skimming thru all those comments)But seriously I do agree with you 100%. Ms. Beatty appears to be a bit high maintenance and a couple french fries short of a happy meal.
Can we all have a drink now?
on 23 Apr 2008 at 8:06 pm 87.Pensgirl said …
Bucdaddy, it became a free speech issue in Cohen vs. California, a Vietnam-War-era case where a guy wearing “Fuck the Draft” on his jacket was arrested. He argued free speech and ultimately won. “Speech,” in the Constitutional sense, has extended to non-verbal, non-written actions (like flipping someone off) and to other visual media (art, for example). It’s sort of a stretch to extend it to how people wear their clothes, but it’s not entirely out of nowhere. It’s also worth noting, Mr. Cohen could still be kicked out of a mall for wearing the same jacket.
I would just like to add to the overall discussion - even if you accept the premise that Jo-Beth is “censoring” Ms. Beatty there’s still nothing wrong with it. In that regard, everyone who sets parameters around a speaker is “censoring”…but that doesn’t make it bad. Even if they do it for no reason, that still doesn’t make it bad.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 8:20 pm 88.Shibori said …
“The author should yank her book from their shelves.”
Yeah, that would show them. Except for the fact that she’s presumably having this reading to sell more books.
I’m a little surprised to hear that big bookstores pipe their open readings over the loudspeaker to begin with. Is that typical? As a regular bookstore customer, I’d find that pretty annoying if I was there to shop and not for the reading.
You know, the other day, a woman on the EBA was reading a book called “Thong on Fire: An Urban Erotic Tale.” (Want a laugh? Look it up on Amazon.) I couldn’t help but chuckle at the idea that such a thing was even published, but obviously it is making money for someone. I wouldn’t think of refusing to go to a bookstore that sold it, or one that held a reading of it in a private space where you could choose to be “exposed” or not, but I certainly wouldn’t go back to a bookstore presenting an open reading over the loudspeaker.
Perhaps while she’s there, Ms. Beatty should pick up a book on the 1st Amendment and familiarize herself with the legal definition of censorship.
on 23 Apr 2008 at 8:45 pm 89.Dee said …
Right on Pitt Girl!
on 24 Apr 2008 at 5:59 am 90.Still A. Fan said …
PG nailed this one. she’s dead on. it seems like every time i’m at the mall, some group of 15 year olds walks past us (8 year old girl in tow) and says something obnoxious that she can hear….i stop them every time and let them know i didnt appreciate it and they USUALLY seem to be genuinely sorry. what is this woman’s problem? you wanna sell your book? conform.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 7:46 am 91.NoSide15212 said …
As an early proponent of “violence against Beatty,” (Jen-nay) I would like to provide further clarification: I was being metaphorical, much like some of Ms. Beatty’s “poetry.” Metaphor: A figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action TO WHICH IT IS NOT LITERALLY APPLICABLE. Sheesh….glad I got that all straightened out before my mum found out.
I’m kinda lukewarm on Ms. Beatty’s work. I prefer the non-metaphorical, actual fucking found in Bukowski.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 8:50 am 92.LisaC said …
You’re right. Of course you’re right! And maybe she SHOULD hold her breath!
on 24 Apr 2008 at 9:14 am 93.Amanda said …
I’ve been thinking about this and though I haven’t read every one of these comments above, I don’t think anyone has raised the point that maybe Jan knows very well that this isn’t really “censorship”–but what she has created is a lot of free publicity for her reading. Whereas most of us would never have heard about Jan’s upcoming reading, we are all now very aware of the reading and Jan’s writing. Sure, that doesn’t mean we are all going to run out to hear her erotic poetry, but there is a good chance that because of this controversy there will be at least twice as many people in the audience than there would have been sans crybaby fit. From a PR standpoint, it is rather genius. You know what they say, there is no such thing as bad publicity.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 9:43 am 94.Invisi-Gal said …
Invis-Gal must surmise 2 things from this post:
1. Ms.Beatty must not have children.If she does, chances are they will not be invited over to my house, Lord knows what might come out of the mouth of her spawn.
2. Ms.Beatty , angry woman as is she, must understand that common courtesy supercedes her ambitous wish to scar listeners at book signings.
These all add up to a massive case of bad taste.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:36 am 95.justretiredguy said …
Just to add my two cents, restating what many others here have said. A private citizen may limit any activity on their property. This is not censorship, and if the bookstore is selling the book then they ARE promoting the author, just not the way the author wants. Boo-hoo.
On a personal note, there hasn’t been a decent poem written since Rudyard Kipling died.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 12:56 pm 96.Lee said …
I am a day or two behind your posts and for that, I humbly prostate myself and ask for forgiveness.
Let me just lift a Yuengling to you in support. I refuse to watch certain shows on TV because they are censored, and censorship is one step away from controlling that was seen in Nazi Germany.
This is not censorship. This is respect. They did not say don’t read. The store was trying to find a way to accommodate all of their customers and while I have never been to this bookstore, I can venture to guess that this bookstore does what most stores do: They put adult material in places that children won’t look at them. You don’t see a Sesame Street Magazine (I don’t actually know if that exists) next to Hustler or Jugs. Those materials are elevated our of their ready eyesight.
This store is doing the same thing only with the spoken word. Is she a windbag? nah…she is stupid. I will say it. She is stupid. And I am tired of stupid people dictating this world. Remove her from the gene pool and from the world and we will all be better.
BTW, I know they suck, and I hate it, but I can’t help but root for the Buccos. And I die a little each night when I check ESPN and see that they lost. It is a shame that the AAA Indianapolis Indians and the AA Altoona Curve play better and are far more entertaining to watch. This reminds me of a few years ago when the Baby Pens were better than the Pens…only difference, the Pens were never on the cusp of setting a NHL record for consecutive losing seasons. So with that Yuengling that I raised to you, I finish it off, get another one and let my tears just roll…
on 24 Apr 2008 at 1:56 pm 97.Sofa King said …
While I agree with Amanda and several of the other readers above that this is little more than a shrewd publicity stunt by Ms. Beatty, it does raise some interesting issues with respect to censorship and what exactly is obscenity.
In the U.S., the Miller Test is often used to differentiate between material that is deemed as obscene and not obscene. Part of the Miller Test is the SLAPS test (Serious Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific) that states if a potentially obscene work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit, then it may be deemed obscene. Since art is highly subjective, how exactly do we determine what has artistic merit? If I write a performance art piece about violently raping a high school girl, is it obscene? If I state that the entire piece is a metaphor for the mistreatment of the nature at the hands of capitalism, is it then art? Artists often speak in metaphor to leave their art “open to interpretation,” but then cry foul when one interprets their work as obscene, when they need to understand that the very status of one of their works as a piece of art is subordinate to the overarching moral ideals of the community in which the work is presented.
That being said, what this comes down to is really about personal freedom. Ms. Beatty has the freedom to express herself as she sees fit, but those around her also have the freedom to filter out material they find objectionable. Additionally, they have the right to go about their business without having material they deem objectionable forced upon them. To that end, I think that Joseph-Beth handled this extremely well, as they offered reasonable accommodations that provided the artist with a forum to express herself while insulating their more sensitive customers from potentially objectionable material. By doing this, they have more-or-less avoided getting a wrap as an “artist unfriendly” institution, which could hinder their likelihood of attracting writers like Sedaris, and they have avoided potential loss of business by customers who would be offended by Beatty’s work.
Sorry for the long comment…bored at work…
on 24 Apr 2008 at 2:57 pm 98.Jane said …
So there’s been a tremendous amount of attention paid to protecting fragile patrons who do not want to hear Beatty’s work. Hmm. And so for those people who do want to hear her recite her art, hear her voice her creative self, I guess we just say “too bad”?
Sure, a fan of hers could go see her at another store. Unless that store also puts restraints on her readings. And I guess a fan could just buy her book and assume there is no chance to hear the artist live. Unless we get to a place where what’s included in the book is edited and limited as well. Or maybe the book shouldn’t be sold at all.
Ever heard of a slippery slope? We’re at it.
One can argue the definition of the word “censorship” all day long. But what is happening is a poet, an artist, is being prevented from expressing her craft. And those people who might have hopes of hearing her won’t get to.
It’s not just about Beatty, it’s about a larger issue of people deciding for other people what is too sexual or violent. I guess above all I am saddened that because Beatty would not alter her creative voice to meet someone else’s standards, she doesn’t get to use her voice at all.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:14 pm 99.pittgirl said …
But Jane, I don’t think you’re understanding this. Jo-Beth has said that Ms. Beatty can read anything she wishes to at their store. They’ve just asked her to speak only to her audience that is there to see her, not have the “vulgar” material broadcast over the sound system to other patrons who are NOT there for Ms. Beatty.
She’s not being prevented from expressing her craft at all. They’ve told her she can express it all she wants to her audience. She’s refusing and she’s calling it censorship. The only reason she doesn’t get to “use her voice” is because she’s choosing not to.
Seems to me her fans have no one to blame but her.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:16 pm 100.Pirogie Kid said …
Jane they just do not want her to use a microphone, curious as to how you arrive at not getting to use her voice from that fact?
on 24 Apr 2008 at 3:20 pm 101.Pirogie Kid said …
Maybe she wants to bust out with a human beat box free-style, in that case you would totally need a mic
on 24 Apr 2008 at 5:46 pm 102.Wanderer said …
Will they ask David Sedaris to turn off the microphone? Some people don’t want their children exposed to homosexuality? And he talks about it.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 8:02 pm 103.Piggy said …
Jane, she’s “expressing her craft” through the publication of her book, not by reading it aloud.
And Wanderer, are you serious? Are you actually drawing parallels between explicit descriptions of sex and violence to a man occasionally mentioning his boyfriend? Have you ever read Sedaris’ books?
on 24 Apr 2008 at 8:54 pm 104.Wanderer said …
Yes, I have read Sedaris. I’m getting at what people find offensive: what you find offensive might not offend someone else…Who gets to say? I know people who would rather hear anything heterosexual over anything gay. It’s slippery slope…Also, you should read him closer…His last book had a bit more edge…But he’s funny, so it slides by…And who said Red Sugar is explicit? Is everyone just trusting the bookstore to decide for them? I’m going to read it and make my own decision…Maybe I’ll get it from the library… :-0
on 24 Apr 2008 at 9:12 pm 105.Still A. Fan said …
jane is delusional as well…..
the only thing thats slippery here is her logic. freaking public bookstores are not pulpits. i’m sorry if this sounds like a lecture - but damn people, i get mad at logic that doesnt make sense. let me ask you a question jane…..what if you were at a record store (wow. record store? who says that anymore? me! i’m 39!) with your child who is 6 and james blunt is there for a signing and they ask him to sing “you’re beautiful” and he has a guitar and obliges. he gets to the part where he says “i could tell right away that she was….fug and high” and it’s the first time your child ever heard that word and now you have to explain it. what right does james blunt have to do that in a public place? he doesnt. however, if you want to PAY to hear james blunt sing that - you can….in concert. allow this “writer” to sell tickets and have a show and she can stand up there and say “f f f f f f f f” if she wants to. but, a public bookstore where people just came in to buy and book and not hear her….isn’t the place for it. simple as that. these thick frame glasses wearing “ultra cool”, latte frappa mocha drinking types are gonna have to go snap their fingers in a poets club if they want to hear it….this is no more a slippery slope than a piece of sandpaper. do you see that? you wanna close the store at 9 and have an adult only reading - fine. you wanna pay the owners of the store for the money they’ll lose during that time then? no? then you better read your little poems that they approve and be freaking HAPPY they’re allowing you to do even that. censorship? good lord. the poor bookstore is already giving this woman too much publicity and they are giving her 97% of everything she wants!!! for crying out loud can we be reasonable people for once and see this for what it is?
on 24 Apr 2008 at 10:15 pm 106.Steven said …
Dear Still A Fan,
If you are so gaddamn worried about your fucking childs ears, then stay home. Don’t take the kid out into the world where the rest of us live and do us all a favor.
PS. I’m sure you love George W.
on 24 Apr 2008 at 11:19 pm 107.In Sewickley said …
Wow, what I don’t like on this blog post are all of the personal attacks.
Hello, this is America…we’re able to air our piece without being shitcanned by the comment below us.
“back in the burgh” said s/he doesn’t want her/his child to have to hear violent-filled poetry. How many parents (and I’m not accusing “back in the burgh” of this) let their kids watch sex, violence and swear words on TV?
The poetry this woman has written has emotion. It isn’t some WWE event on The CW.
And I wasn’t talking about three-year-olds anyway. But parents let their kids dress and act like Britney Spears and the like yet when it comes to areas where kids could learn something, people freak out. Come on!
Young folks should be exposed at an early age to proper sexual content (like hearing the truth about where babies come from) and they should be introduced to things that aren’t common in their daily life like other races, cultures, sexual orientations. When people live in sameness they turn out to hate things that are different from them.
I say, let the woman read her piece!
on 25 Apr 2008 at 12:42 am 108.GetOverYourselfSteven said …
Steven:
Do you have children? If so, do you freely let them watch anything they want on TV? Do you take them to places where they could be subjected to vulgar language? If you do, you’re a terrible parent.
If you don’t have kids, then you have no room to espouse your belief that we should just keep our kids inside and away from the likes of you.
This author would not be permitted to do her reading anywhere else where the general public would be — e.g. a shopping mall, restaurant, etc. — so I don’t blame J-B for not allowing her to read freely in their store.
And the George W comment? Why the heck did you pull that one out of your butt? I personally can’t stand our president, but that doesn’t mean that I’m an ultra liberal that your comments infer that you are.
on 25 Apr 2008 at 5:42 am 109.Still A. Fan said …
steven is a blithering idiot. if he knew anything about our country and/or the law (there should be an IQ requirement to read this blog) he would know what terms such as “reasonable expectations” are. it sounds like i’m repeating my last post but i guess it’s necessary - its insane logic to think that to keep your kid from hearing stuff like that you have to stay home. if you take your kid to the grocery store….there is no expectation of someone standing at a podium reading provocative poetry. if you take your kid to a chris rock concert, of course he’s going to hear that stuff. is that so hard to understand? there will be people there just buying books who dont even know who she is or what she does….they didnt go there to hear her. a public place is not the forum for that unless people know what they’re getting into. “your f’ing childs ears”? wow. way to try to make a point, genius. do you have trouble remembering if you put your socks on before your shoes?
on 25 Apr 2008 at 10:32 am 110.Travis said …
Dear Still a Fan,
You people act like your kids are so sacred or something. They’re not. They’ll grow up to be ignorant assholes like you. Marrying people they don’t love, staying because they have nothing better to do with their lives. Boring. Banning people? Get over it Nazi’s. There is nothing special about giving birth. Even dogs can do it.
on 25 Apr 2008 at 10:40 am 111.pittgirl said …
Just a reminder: Don’t feed the trolls.
on 25 Apr 2008 at 11:34 am 112.deebee said …
pittgirl…word
I have been reading these posts for last few days. I love my erotic reading as much as the next yinzer. But I don’t want to hear it over the speakers in a bookstore. I have a teenage son who I do go to bookstores with. I’m sure he hear worse on TV and @ school but time and place people!!
Still A Fan..I remember record stores also.
on 25 Apr 2008 at 5:18 pm 113.Still A Fan said …
i swear. banning people? did you even read the original post. you’re right, PG. my work here is done. we’re nazi’s because we asked her to use her inside voice instead of a microphone. ignorant?
A: 57
Q: subtract your IQ from mine
on 28 Apr 2008 at 9:36 am 114.Freddy said …
Interesting.
on 28 Apr 2008 at 9:41 am 115.ultraban said …
And don’t forget marshmallow feet.
on 28 Apr 2008 at 12:20 pm 116.Ms. Mon said …
PittGirl, with all due respect, you are a dumb bitch. Won’t you kindly shove it up YOUR ass?
I gotta go with the more dimensional perpective offered by Sue Kerr of Pittsburgh Lesbian Correspondents on this one.
http://pghwomenbloggers.blogspot.com/2008/04/joseph-beth-bookstore-and-women.html
Rock. On. Pitt. Grrl.
on 30 Apr 2008 at 10:29 pm 117.jeepster said …
Come on yunz guys!
Turn off the CSI killing/thrilling, let the kiddies home alone while playing grand theft auto. Go out and buy a book, better yet read a book.
on 09 Jun 2008 at 9:23 am 118.The Burgh Blog » So THERE! said …
[...] I need to remind you guys about that time I went “ballistic” on Jan Beatty and may or may not have in so many words told her to take a microphone and well, ahem, shove it up [...]
on 22 Sep 2008 at 9:58 pm 119.paperneck said …
The book store is afraid Beatty will read one of her poems about “big cocks”, rough sex, or maybe even a poem about rape.
From Beatty’s point of view it makes sense for her to be upset over the idea of someone choosing which poem she is going to read, or at what volume she can read, because so many of the poems seem react to a belief that female sexuality is repressed, or that violence against women is often a hushed subject. I doubt that Beatty would have read any of her more graphic poetry as she more than familiar with what is appropriate for a public audience (amongst other things she is the host of her own public radio broadcast). It seems like she is more offended at the assumptions being made about her, and the stores attempt at trying to control the subjects she would discuss.
The business is of course still a business. The reason Ron Jeremy or David Sedaris can read there without strings attached is because they are much more popular than Jane Beatty is. I get this really sad feeling that Beatty is actually disappointed that a book store isn’t supporting artists. I don’t know why people fall for that trick. Places like Joseph-Beth support creative expression and local artists when it boosts their image and draws a crowd. It’s a pretense and I’m surprised she didn’t realize that before hand.