Writers who are monsters - should their works be withdrawn by booksellers (WARNING! - Potentially distressing content)

[Quattrocento]

The case of Roger Took disturbed me. It's a disturbing case.

Article in the Spectator here
He's a convicted paedophile who happens to have written some well-regarded travel books. Should Amazon and other booksellers continue to stock books by him? What do you think?

I think the public should never be shielded from just how vile these excuses for people really are. Because they deserve nothing but the worst.

I couldn't read the whole article. Can someone explain to me, was all that stuff with the five-year-old girl fantasy or did it actually happen? Also, did he do it or view pictures of it (if it happened)?

Also, the OP stated that it was a disturbing case and that Took is a convicted paedophile.

Ample warning, IMO.

Anyone?

As far as I could glean he was sentenced for 17 crimes relating to child abuse. They included molesting two of his step-granddaughters and the possession of 260 photographs.

The stuff about the Cambodian girl came from a chatroom anecdote. No-one knows if that is true or not, but he was a travel writer so it is possible.

I hate the schlock horror opening paragraph though. You end up so disturbed that it's not possible to glean the facts from the speculation or potential fantasy.

If that is what it takes to expose these fuckers for what they really are, to show how they think, then it needs to be out there so people stop looking hte other way and start working towards tougher legislation and incarcerations for these criminals.

much less disturbing (but still to be approached with caution) link from woman's hour

it does need a warning on the thread title.

If it had I would never have read it. The first paragraph was bad enough and I couldn't bring myself to read the rest of it.

I don't think that people look the other way in regards to paedophila. We all know what it is, I don't see how graphic detail improves people's understanding at all.

I think the effect is to stir people up about paedos and just how bad they really are, especially how manipulative and clever most are.

I didn't actually start this thread to stir people up about paedophiles in general

I started this thread because I had not heard of the case. I imagine few people have. It's just not been reported at all. Which is shocking. I was also shocked to find out about all the booksellers stocking his works. They shouldn't be sold IMO

Much better link, quattro. Gives the general gist without the horrific detail.

Agree Quattrro- I haven't heard it reported anywhere else.

Expat-we'll have to agree to disagree. I think most people believe that paedo's are vile without needing the details.

Well I did write to Amazon - must be mad to have wasted my time. Here's their response:

"Thank you for writing to Amazon.com with your concerns.

I understand that you feel very strongly about this issue.

Let me assure you that Amazon.com does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts; we do support the right of every individual to choose his or her own reading material or entertainment.

As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any item they might be seeking. That selection includes some items which many people may find objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on our web site represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of topics.

First, please allow me to express my sincere apologies for any frustration that has been caused.

It is certainly not our intention for our customers to have anything but a pleasant experience at our store.

Further, we appreciate the time you've taken to share your feedback with us.

It's always important for us to hear how customers feel about all aspects of shopping at Amazon.com.

Strong customer feedback like yours helps us continue to improve our store and the service we provide.

I'll be sure to pass your message on to the appropriate department in our company for consideration.

As a representative of Amazon.com, I want to assure you that we value our customers' trust above all else--it's the foundation on which our company was built.

Please know that we'll continue working hard to ensure that you receive accurate service, and to minimize the chances of anything like this occurring again.

In addition to a wide selection of items, one of our aims at Amazon.com is to provide a convenient and efficient service; in this case, we have not met that standard.

I am truly sorry that we were not able to fulfill your expectations for this level of service. I hope that you will give us another opportunity to prove the quality of our service to you.

Thank you for shopping at Amazon.com. We hope to see you again soon.

Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question:"

NO IT DIDN'T RESOLVE WHY YOU ARE GIVING A SCOURGE AND A PESTILENCE A SOURCE OF INCOME.

Omg that article was horrendous especially a particular phrase that was used in the second paragraph. I do not want this in my head in a way but would have had no idea of the brutality
of these "men" otherwise. This case like the op says needs to be more widely known.

What I couldn't do with a rusty screwdriver, bastards.

that
is
hideous

Absolutely NO!

I worked as a bookseller for 7 years and my opinion is that a Bookseller can decide what they want to stock (or not want to) but they can not deny the customer the right to order a book in. As a bookseller I would not have actively ordered in holocaust denial literature but had a customer requested that it be ordered the I would have been wrong to refuse.

We had the Gita Sereny book in (about Mary Bell) and my manager wanted it sold from beneath the counter! She was a liberal woman and I was shocked. i wanted it in the psychology section, others wanted it in the true crime section!

The author David Irving tried to sue individual booksellers who had refused to order his books.
we once had a rush of orders for a book about photography which featured pictures of young children, something alerted us to the fact that people were ordering the book because of these pictures. I notified the police. I don't know what happened but we still stocked the book.

I the case of this book - I don't know. On the one hand it may be a good book on its subject which is in demand but I think if an individual bookseller has an issue with the book then they have every right to not order it in. Trouble is a lot of chain booksellers have books ordered centrally and so don't have the buying decision. It's not the individual booksellers you should lobby but the chains themselves.

Out of interest - do you think 'alice in wonderland' should be withdrawn?

Quite a lot of authors (and artists, musicians and athletes) have revolting personalities: wife-beaters, rapists, racists, murderers and theives. There's one argument about whether or not their work should be banned due to their badness, which becomes tricky when one starts considering where the lines should be drawn.
There's another issue about how much the Establishment protects its members when the average pleb gets ripped to bits for similar crimes. I would hope that the minimal news coverage of this particular individual is down to the police still investigating linked individuals and not wanting to prejudice the investigation.

Yes, I thought that Madamez.

Actually I was thinking of Nelson Mandela, whom I revere. At one time he was labelled a terrorist and if you were to start drawing lines (eg no books by entirely abominable people) then it would be entirely possible for his book not to be stocked.

Part of the problem for me with this case is that the booksellers who stock him have not (or have not yet) published that Roger Took is currently in prison for child abuse. I think that's a relevant fact when choosing to buy a book. The blurbs talk about his contribution as an art historian and his travel writing. They don't mention his conviction or what he spent quite a lot of his travels doing.

As for Alice in Wonderland, I am aware of the writers proclivities but I am also aware there is no evidence of actual abuse, and certainly he was never convicted of any crime.

God, I started the article in tears and am now shaking with anger. For those that stopped reading, the first page is hideously graphic but from page 2 onwards, it is very interesting and goes on to explain more about how he appears to have gone unnoticed.

I'm just so

I am sure there is a very sound (and possibly tragic) reason why the Spectator has chosen to publicise this particular horrific case.
I am astounded at its graphic nature, not quite what one expects of the codgers of Doughty Street.
I've never heard of him as it happens, but I hope he spends every minute of his sentence in jail, the monster .
I thought the thread might be about William Mayne, highly respected and very talented children's author in the 60s and 70s (how many 40 something Mners read Earthfasts? He was very influential). And now he's a convicted paedophile.
I've never been able to bring myself to have any of his books in the house.