出版与作家生涯2021abigailshrier.substack.com
亚马逊时代的禁书
Book Banning in an Age of Amazon
导读
这篇文章讨论在亚马逊主导图书发行的时代，「禁书」的含义如何变化：不再是政府查禁，而是渠道下架、可见度下降。对写作者来说值得一读，因为它关乎作品能否抵达读者，也关乎作者如何为自己的立场取证、如何面对利益相关带来的可信度问题。评论区对作者的论证方式提出了尖锐质疑。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
讨论「被封禁」时先区分三件事：法律禁止、渠道下架、无人可见；混为一谈会让论证失去说服力。
- 02
如果作者本人是事件的当事人，最好在文中主动交代自己的利害关系，否则读者一旦自行发现，全文可信度都会打折。
- 03
同样一本书放在「另类医学」还是「精神疾病」书架，读者的接受方式完全不同——标题、分类和语境本身就是写作的一部分。
- 04
用具体的个人经历（如去图书馆找书的遭遇）来承载抽象论点，比直接下判断更容易让读者站到你这边。
HN 评论精选
真正的风险是渠道集中导致的可及性下降，而非单店的选择自由。
问题不在于某些书店不卖这些书，那没什么大不了。问题在于这些书的可及性被大幅压缩了。当某个单一实体变得过大，或整个行业集体抵制某样东西时，就出问题了。我不知道解决方案是什么，但我确信这已经超出了一家私企「只卖自己想卖的东西」的权利范围——这项权利现在与社会接触已出版作品的机会发生了冲突，也限制了作者和出版商销售合法作品。
xupybd查看英文原文
The problem is not that the books are banned by some book stores. That situation is fine, and we can live with it. The problem is that access to those books is now significantly reduced. When a single entity gets too big or an entire industry chooses to ban something we have a problem. I don't know the solution but I do know this goes beyond a private company's right to sell only what they want. That right is now in competition with societies access to published works. It is also restricting authors and publishers from selling works that are legal to sell. This is a problem.
作者本人是当事人，读者应把这一利害关系计入对她论证的评估。
一个重要的背景：这位作者自己的书《不可逆的伤害：跨性别热潮如何引诱我们的女儿》最近被一些销售渠道下架。这究竟有利于还是有损于她的论证，由读者自行判断。
tobobo查看英文原文
I think it’s important context that this author recently had her book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing our Daughters” blocked from sale at some outlets. You can decide whether that helps or hurts her argument.
分类与上架位置决定读者如何理解一本书，这比「禁不禁」更微妙也更真实。
我一直坚决反对禁书。……后来我被诊断为成人多动症，这解释了我人生中很多事，我也对父母当年在我确诊后转而求助另类疗法有些怨气。我去本地图书馆找关于成人多动症的书，想让妻子更了解这个病，结果整个馆只有一本成人多动症的书（儿童多动症的倒不少），而在同一个书架上，摆着两本言之凿凿宣称多动症是编造出来的病的书。我并不想禁掉它们，但非常希望图书馆把它们归到「另类医学」而不是「精神疾病 > 多动症」下面——不是为了我自己，而是为了那些刚被确诊、父母又像我父母一样正想找个理由否认诊断的孩子。
EdwardDiego查看英文原文
I've always been absolutely opposed to banning books. ...then I got diagnosed with adult ADHD, which, boy howdy, explains a lot about my life, and I'm only somewhat resentful of my parents for pursuing an alternative medicine approach when I was diagnosed as a kid. But anyway, that's just setting the scene. Then I went to my local library to get some books on adult ADHD, to help my wife understand it better, and they only had one book on adult ADHD (quite a few more on child ADHD, natch), but in the same section, had two books stating unequivocally that ADHD was a made-up condition. These ones: Debunking ADHD: 10 Reasons to Stop Drugging Kids for Acting Like Kids - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1475827377/ ADHD Does Not Exist: The Truth About Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder - https://www.amazon.com/ADHD-Does-Not-Exist-Hyperactivity/dp/006226673X And I guess, now that I had a strong personal stake, I felt rather offended by these books. I don't want to ban them, but I'd very much prefer that the library filed them under "alternative medicine" rather than under "mental illness > ADHD". Not so much for myself, but for any kids who get diagnosed and have a parent or parents similar to mine looking for a reason to deny the diagnosis.
应把「卖不动/看不见」与「被禁止」区分开，作者混淆了二者。
即便存在图书销售垄断（亚马逊显然算不上），垄断者也无法真正「禁」掉一本书。只要人们还能卖东西、还能用物流，出版商就还能出版、读者就还能买和读。知名度和可发现性确实是问题，但那与内容或题材被禁是两回事。何况还有互联网，任何人都能把一个 epub 文件放到公开网址上。作者在文中直接讨论亚马逊下架那本书的内容、并正面回应其观点时，就已经暴露了立场。这不过是某个人的观念正变得不那么受欢迎、于是抱怨一种并不存在的不公。
sneak查看英文原文
A monopoly in book-selling (which Amazon absolutely does not have) still doesn't allow the monopolist to ban a book. As long as people can sell stuff and have access to shipping, publishers can still publish and readers can still buy and read. Popularity and discoverability is still an issue, but that is orthogonal to content or topics being banned. And then, of course, there is the internet, where anyone can put an .epub up at a public URL. The author of this piece tips her hand when she veers off into discussion of the content of the book Amazon dropped and engages with its position directly. This is just another case of someone who believes in ideas that are becoming less popular and less acceptable complaining about nonexistent unfairness. I become less and less surprised to find (seemingly undercover) right-wing talking points on Substack these days, especially after its founder decided to donate free content to a leading alt-right website/publication by appearing on their podcast. Seeing stuff published on subdomains of substack.com immediately has me default-hyper-critical, which is something that usually only happens to me on OANN, Gab, Parler, msnbc.com, et c.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选