Does a writer have any artistic freedom left...?
Posted by: Gajdzin on 26 April 2014
I'm just back from a meeting with my publisher. They said: "yes, we'd love for you to write another novel, as long as it takes place in Japan."
A little background: my first novel's action was in Japan and it was a bestseller here. The next one was happening in Singapore, then 2 in Japan. Now every reader thinks of me as a writer who writes books "about Japan". In my humble opinion I have never written a book ABOUT Japan. It's just a geographical place for the action. But that's how I got labelled. And I hate that label. I see myself as a writer of novels that talk about people, their stories, their emotions and experiences. A book is either good or bad and who cares if its action is in Japan or Wisbech, Cambridgeshire.
On the other hand I understand my publisher. They invest a lot of money in a book and they need to see some profit. They know my fans want to read about Japan, which is why my fifth novel, that had very little to do with Asia, was a bit of a flop - only 5000 copies sold in the first half year, and they printed 10000, hoping for much higher sales.
Should I sell out and write what the publisher (and, apparently, the readers) want to read about?
OK, I know it's a weird topic for a Naim forum 
But I found so much good advice here (albeit on somewhat different matters) that who knows, maybe someone will open my mind...?
Dear Kevin,
If I am correct, then you are journalist and writer. Have you ever been served a "D-notice?"
There are loosely defined limits to free speech. There is no right to absolute free speech in the UK, but only a hard fought for privilege to it within bounds. That is the reality whatever you might say.
The authorities can spike a story without explanation and that is the truth.
ATB from George
Hi George, I am yes, but I've never been served a D (or DA, as they are known these days) Notice - I'm not that important! 
.
However, you do know that they are issued in an advisory capacity only and are not legally enforceable? However, editors tend to comply with them, although not always - to give you some recent examples which were ignored, in matters relating to Snowden and PRISM.
Any form of prior restraint - whether it comes from governments or in the form of super-injunctions from errant footballers or corrupt corporations - is almost always resisted, both here and in the US, because it is regarded as the most oppressive form of censorship. Interestingly, governments', and corporations' control over the flow of information is gradually weakening and I think this is a good thing. This has been going on for around 25 years (think back to the "Spycatcher" farce) as the world becomes more interconnected and "globalised".
There are of course, limits to what can be said or expressed (for example, where a statement is likely to result in a crime, such as assault or violence, or in cases such as the dissemination of child pornography), but generally I do not agree with censorship.
For example (plucked at random), I do not think that Holocaust denial should be a crime (as it is, I believe, in Germany, perhaps with good reason). Holocaust deniers are usually either deluded or Nazis, but if they choose to think that the Shoah never happened, that is their right, even if people find their views deeply offensive. We can to a degree control what people do, and to a far lesser extent what they say, but nobody can, or has the right, to control what people think. This is what the Nazis, the Bolsheviks and other totalitarian regimes have always tried to do.
And when I am told that information is being witheld "for my own good" or "my safety" I get very suspicious and resentful. I am not a child.
Not the most reliable source, but Wikipedia might help a little.....
Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. The term freedom of expression is sometimes used synonymously, but includes any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.
The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is commonly subject to limitations based on the speech implications of the harm principle including libel, slander, obscenity and pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements.
The term "offence principle" is also used[1] to expand the range of free speech limitations to prohibit forms of expression where they are considered offensive to society, special interest groups or individuals. For example, freedom of speech is limited in many jurisdictions to widely differing degrees by religious legal systems, religious offense or incitement to ethnic or racial hatred laws.
The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[2][3]