PayPal censorship

You are no longer allowed to buy the Bible. Or certain plays by Shakespeare. Or some of the works by Stephen King, Anne Rice and J. R. R. Tolkien. Why? Because PayPal said so!

As of today, ebook distributors who use PayPal (such as BookStrand, Smashwords, AllRomanceEbooks) are no longer allowed to sell books containing types of erotica that their payment processor PayPal doesn’t like. Otherwise PayPal pulls the plug on them. So what types of erotica would that be, you ask? Nasty types, of course, or more precisely bestiality, rape, incest and underage erotica. Well, that certainly is nasty, you say? You think it’s a good thing then, what PayPal is doing? No, it isn’t. Because this, my friends, is censorship.

Censorship is never good. Never ever. If you don’t want to read a certain book, then don’t. Nobody’s forcing you to buy or read books that you don’t like, because you have the freedom of choice. But now PayPal is forcing you to refrain from making that choice. In fact, the payment processor is now taking away your right to think for yourself.

Some of the stuff in the books now banned by PayPal I find very nasty, of course, but I still defend it, as I don’t believe in censorship. Or to use a quote attributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” But then again, Voltaire is one of the writers who - according to PayPal - you’re not allowed to read, because censoring books containing bestiality, rape, incest and underage erotica doesn’t just mean censoring porn. It means censoring some of the greatest works in literature ever.

I wonder if PayPal has realised that by preventing readers to buy books containing bestiality, rape, incest and underage erotica, they have banned books like Paradise Lost, One Hundred Years of Solitude, The Bible, Ulysses, Story of O, American Psycho, Slaughterhouse Five, Sophocles’ Oedipus, Ovid’s Metamorphoses and several Shakespeare plays just to mention a few. So now Shakespeare, James Joyce and the Bible are no good for us? They are abominations that ought to be banned? I don’t get it. I really don’t. If PayPal had been around earlier, most of our literary treasures would never have seen the day of light. Shame on you, PayPal, shame on you!

Some will undoubtedly argue that it’s up to PayPal who they want to do business with, but with a corporation as big and powerful as PayPal I don’t agree. PayPal almost have a total monopoly of online money transactions and thus the power to put a stop to free speech. It is a scary thought that our right of freedom of expression is now controlled by a payment processor!

I’m not stupid, though. I’m sure that PayPal is going to turn a blind eye to Shakespeare and the Bible, letting them survive, but in a way I hope that book distributors are going to pull ALL the titles in question off the market. That way more PayPal users would come to realise just how horrible the idea is to have a payment processor censoring the book industry. I hope you’ll join me in demanding PayPal to back off or else we’ll pull the plug on them. All 350 million of us! Please, sign the petition against PayPal censorship: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/7/stop-internet-censorship

The Woman in Black

Director James Watkins has taken on Susan Hill’s 1983 novel “The Woman in Black” and made quite an efficient horror film out of it. The novel has already been made into a successful television film and a stage play, that is the second longest-running in the history of London’s West End, and now good old Hammer Film Production has made it into a film. To me Hammer equals horror. It makes me think of their many films about Frankenstein, Dracula and the Mummy not to mention their “Hammer House of Horror” series. But where the previous productions all had an air of kitschy B-movie about them – that was their charm so to speak - “The Woman in Black” is a 100% quality film.

In many ways the film version of “The Woman in Black” is a classic Victorian ghost story, although it takes place in the Edwardian era. It tells the story of the lawyer Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) who lives in London with his four-year-old son as his wife has died after childbirth. Kipps has financial problems and is assigned to handle the estate of Alice Drablow who owned the desolate and secluded Eel Marsh House, where she had lived with her husband, son Nathaniel, and sister, Jennet Humfrye (Liz White). The house is situated near the small town Crythin Gifford, but it is completely cut off from the mainland at high tide, as it is surrounded by marshes. When Kipps arrive at Crythin Gifford, the locals are very hostile and try to make him leave immediately. Only the innkeeper’s wife Mrs. Fisher (Mary Stockley), the landowner Sam Daily (Ciarán Hinds) and his wife (Janet McTeer) show Kipps some kindness. While sorting through Mrs Drablow's papers at Eel Marsh House, Kipps experiences an increasing amount of terrifying noises and chilling events and gradually he comes to realise that the house and the town is haunted by an evil spirit that takes its revenge by killing young children.

The plot of the film is rather transparent, at least I figured it out in less than fifteen minutes, but still the story is a creepy, scary, chilling one with many a shock in store. Not for the fainthearted for sure as there is a reason why it is rated “suitable only for 15 years or older”. The film makes heavy use of jump scares, though, which is a bit annoying, as it isn’t needed. The story itself is chilling enough on its own, but I suppose Watkins has wanted to make sure that the audience’s blood pressure is raised most of the time. The film also has a rather dodgy ending where Kipps seems unsuitably happy about the way things turn out. Here scriptwriter Jane Goldman has made a serious a faux pas by turning the tragic ending of the novel into a very strange, happy one where Kipps’ joy totally contradicts the whole premise of the story.

“The Woman in Black” is Daniel Radcliffe’s first film after his decade of portraying Harry Potter and that is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Why? Because in the 1989 television version of “The Woman in Black” it was Adrian Rawlins who played the haunted lawyer and in the Harry Potter films Rawlins was - of course - James Potter, Harry Potter’s dad. In a ghost story about parents and sons, it is a bit funny to let Radcliffe take over his film-father’s old part. I haven’t seen the television version, but I’m pretty sure that Radcliffe outshines his “dad”. Radcliffe is what? Twenty-two? In the last Harry Potter film he was supposed to be seventeen and now in “The Woman in Black” he’s a thirty-something family man and he’s convincing. When watching “The Woman in Black” you don’t think about Harry Potter, you don’t think about age, you are just wholly absorbed in the portrait that Radcliffe paints of Arthur Kipps. Because don’t get this wrong. No matter how chilling “The Woman in Black” is, it is not just a ghost story, it is also a one man show. The film IS Radcliffe as all the other actors are just necessary but almost invisible supporting cast members and you don’t really remember their performances afterwards. You do with Radcliffe. Despite his young age, he is an extremely talented actor, in my opinion one of the best in the world at the moment, and I hope to see a lot more from him in years to come.

The film runs a short 95 minutes.
Three out of five stars: *** (but five to Daniel Radcliffe!)

Where to get "Greatest Hits"

 "Greatest Hits 1996-2011" is now available a lot of places. You can, of course, still by it at Smashwords, but you'll find it available through Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk as well. Barnes & Noble and Apple iBooks, Kobo, Sony and Diesel sell it, too. Prices range from $2.99 to $5.74, Amazon.com being the most expensive, and in the UK you can get it for £1.98. I've checked out some of the editions and especially Apple's iBook edition looks amazing. Please, buy and read. I could really do with some reviews, too, especially on Smashwords and Amazon.

 I'll leave you with a funny book trailer that my daughter made for me. You can watch it here.

Greatest Hits 1996-2011

 After 30 years of paper books, publishers and 15% royalties, it is finally here: my first ever indie ebook! It's called "Greatest Hits 1996-2011" and it's a celebration of my first fifteen years as a short story author.

"Greatest Hits 1996-2011" consists of my ten most popular short stories. The collection is formed like a literary Top 10 chart, counting down from number 10 to number 1. The short stories have been selected based on sales figures like in any other chart, and the selection has been made from stories previously published in Danish and English short story collections, anthologies and literary magazines.

The collection includes "The Blackbird", "Bigal's Nasty Café", "The Smiling Skeleton" and the literary novella "Mooncalf". It takes you on a journey into my trademark magic realism universe populated by rusty rock stars, faithless lovers, ghosts and goddesses, where tall tales of empathy, prejudice, love and death unfold in the encounter between reality and paranormality. Hopefully you'll feel well entertained on the journey to places like Manhattan, Hell and Copenhagen - and a bit wiser afterwards, too!

"Greatest Hits 1996-2011" is available here through Smashwords and on Amazon.

Books I read in 2011

I didn’t read as much in 2011 as in previous years, probably because I’ve been so busy writing, not only Don Powell’s biography, but also stuff of my own. You see, after 30 years of paper books, publishers and 15% royalties, I’ve decided to go indie, so hopefully no less than five of my works are going to get out in 2012 as indie ebooks.

Anyway, when reading through my book list, it is fairly simple to see what has interested me in 2011: manga, sci-fi, horror, mysteries, fantasy and high quality literature. And then of course 2011 was the year, when I stopped smoking! :-)

Here’s the list:
Aki, Katsu: “Manga Love Story”, vol. 1
Aki, Katsu: “Manga Love Story”, vol. 2
Arden, William: “The Mystery of The Shrinking House”
Arthur, Robert: “The Mystery of The Stuttering Parrot”
Barker, Clive: “Abarat”
Bradbury, Ray: A Graveyard for Lunatics”
Bradbury; Ray: “Something Wicked This Way Comes”
Bradbury, Ray: The Illustrated Man”
Carey, M. V.: “The Mystery of The Flaming Footprints”
Carleton, Barbee Oliver: “The Witches’ Bridge”
Carr, Alan: “The Easy Way to Stop Smoking”
Coope, Katy: “How to Draw Manga”
Garner, Alan: “Elidor”
Garner, Alan: “The Moon of Gomrath”
Gray, Peter: “How to draw Manga – Heroes and Villains”
Hart, Christopher: “Kids draw Manga Shoujo”
Hatori, Bisco: “Ouran High School Host Club”, vol. 14
Hatori, Bisco: “Ouran High School Host Club”, vol. 15
Hatori, Bisco: “Ouran High School Host Club”, vol. 16
Higgins Clark, Mary: “Loves Music, Loves to Dance”
Jones, Terry: “Furious Resonance”
Keene, Carolyn: The Clue in the Crumbling Wall”
Murakami, Maki: “Gravitation” vol. 1
Nakamura, Shungiku: “Junjo Romantica” vol. 13
Patterson, James & Peter de Jonge: “Miracle on the 17th Green”
Straub, Peter: “Ghost Story”
Tolkien, J. R. R.: “The Hobbit or There and Back Again”
Trudeau, G. B.: “Doonesbury”, vol. 20
Trudeau, G.B.: “Doonesbury”, vol. 28
Zwigtman, Floortje: “Auf Leben und Tod”

I especially recommend the books by Floortje Zwigtman (I was really sorry to see her Adrian Mayfield series come to an end with “Auf Leben und Tod” as they are the best books I have ever read), Terry Jones (I met him on the train to Birmingham, smashing bloke) and Alan Carr (I stopped smoking because of his book). Happy reading!

Merry Christmas

 From me to you: my Twitter haiku 2009-2011:
http://twimagination.com/c3nc

The Adventures of Tintin

Steven Spielberg’s performance capture 3D film ”The Adventures of Tintin” is charming, funny, and action-packed. Too bad that it just isn’t Tintin!

Born and raised in Europe I grew up reading the classic comic book series of Tintin, created and drawn by Belgian artist Hergé. What characterises the series is its “ligne claire” style, which Hergé pioneered with Tintin. The style uses clear strong lines with a minimum of hatching and contrasts and it features strong colours and a combination of cartoonish characters against a realistic background, which gives the comic a flat aspect. The style is so essential to Tintin that without it there is no Tintin at all and sadly Spielberg has chosen to discard the style all together. This is clear from the beginning where in the 2D intro Spielberg pays homage to his own Saul Bass inspired “Catch Me If You Can” intro rather than Hergés ligne claire style. Although the Tintin intro includes elements from the comic books, it doesn’t include the right colours or the strong lines, which is very disappointing. Especially as the intro is Spielberg’s only chance of using the ligne claire style, as the film itself is so realistic due to its 3D performance capture technique that it could as well have been an “ordinary” film.

”The Adventures of Tintin” (also known as “The Secret of the Unicorn”) is based on three of the original comic books: “The Crab with the Golden Claws” (1941), “The Secret of the Unicorn” (1943), and “Red Rackham's Treasure” (1944). Despite the use of three different books as its source, the plot is good and easy to follow. It tells the story of Tintin, a young Belgian reporter, who buys a model ship named the Unicorn and suddenly finds himself pursued by the sinister Mr. Sakharine. Tintin and his fox terrier Snowy join forces with the drunk Captain Haddock and the incompetent detectives Thomson and Thompson in an adventure that leads them to Morocco and the unveiling of the secret of Red Rackham’s Treasure. So far, so good. The plots in Hergé’s comic books are usually adventures mixed with slapstick humour and elements from fantasy, science fiction and political thrillers, added satirical, political and cultural commentaries, but somehow Spielberg has managed to turn his plot into a very American, political correct action film. Annoying!

Another thing that is annoying is the way that the characters are being portrayed in the film. In fact it’s difficult to recognise some of them because they are extremely fat with HUGE noses! WHY?? The only one with a small nose is Tintin, but where Hergé’s Tintin is as blank as a canvas with hardly any personality, Spielberg’s Tintin (played by Jamie Bell) is charming, funny, passionate and…well…a human being! A genuine likeable hero as opposed to the original boring idealist. Hergé’s permanently drunk, swearing, cynical and grumpy Captain Haddock isn’t quite himself, either. Not only is he fat and huge-nosed, he has turned into a bit of a whiner in Spielberg’s version as well, a self-pitying drinker who is ashamed of his drinking and who doesn’t swear very much. He is played by Andy Serkis, whereas the detectives Thomson and Thompson are played by Nick Frost and Simon Pegg. Thomson and Thompson (who are not related in any way, they just look alike except for their moustaches), are the fattest of them all in Spielberg’s version (again WHY?), but at least they are as stupid as in the comic books. The same can’t be said about Tintin’s dog Snowy. In the comic books the dog is really stupid, but in the film he’s as clever a Lassie! Why?? I also wonder why “the Milanese Nightingale”, opera singer Bianca Castafiore (played by Kim Stengel), has the face of a man? And why isn’t she as voluptuous as in the comic books? But she still has a huge nose? And why is the villain Sakharine (Daniel Craig), made to look younger and nicer than the one in the comic books? But with a pretty big nose, too? I’m just wondering.

Sadly Spielberg doesn’t manage to capture the atmosphere of Hergé’s stories or the nature of his characters and with the very special aesthetics of the comic books missing too, you are left with a VERY American action movie. I truly miss the real Tintin, but when that is said, I have to admit that I really liked that film, as it is very entertaining. I do think, however, that the PG rating (in Denmark a PG–7) is wrong, not because of the drinking, swearing and killing in the film, but because of the plot. I think that you have to be at least 10-12 years old to fully understand it. And as a grown-up it’s quite annoying having to share the cinema with hundreds of seven year olds, who are screaming, talking, jumping in their seats, throwing popcorn and being generally bored by a film that is way too “adult” to keep their attention during the 107 minutes that it lasts.

Three out of five stars: ***