Today’s Ted Wilson’s review was censored. You can request his review of the Holocaust by emailing iamtedwilson@gmail.com.
Correction (or rewording): The editors decided against running Ted Wilson’s review of the Holocaust. Mr. Wilson has offered to send the essay if you email him at iamtedwilson@gmail.com
20 responses
‘Ironically, Hitler would probably be pretty upset to hear people who are on his side denying all his efforts. After all the hard work he put into it, it must be a real bummer to hear someone say, “what Holocaust?†Next to his career as an artist, the Holocaust is Hitler’s biggest failure.’
Oh my God. This is amazing.
This is all exceedingly lame. Ted’s column, for those of you wondering if you should email him for it, was pretty great, in my opinion. Funny at the start, and funnier all the way along. But even if I didn’t think it was, I personally would have stood behind it, because protecting your writers is pretty much your responsibility when you’re any kind of editor. You could make a case that it’s all the more important when those writers are toiling away primarily for the benefit of The Rumpus and receiving, in most cases, no money. There’s also some kind of dreadful irony in a column about the Holocaust being censored simply because one or two people decided it was offensive to… someone.
The Rumpus should have sided with it’s writers.
Some things are horrific. By taking a humorous view of them we can humanise them in such a way that we can connect and comprehend them at a deeper level as a human being. Do we turn away from history because parts are so abhorrent? Or do we take a cheap shot, laugh, break the ice and then begin to learn about it? Also the Harry Potter link is apposite. Voldemort, the Hitler in the tale, was never referred to by his name, other than by the heroes of the story. Censorship is a power that must be used very wisely. On the face, The Rumpus has done little more than censor a short comedy piece. At a deeper level I fear that they have offended their readers.
I would argue that there is a difference between “censorship” and “editorial discretion.”
Hi Isaac, I would respectfully agree. In this case, the Editors have done the work, as the first line under the heading for this page reads:
“Today’s Ted Wilson’s review was censored.”
And it was.
I would argue that the difference between “censorship” and “editorial discretion” is solely based on who is speaking.
Who has to be offended by something for it to warrant censorship? Only the editorial staff? Certain people in power who can influence said editorial staff? Or does the readership have a say in the matter?
Will you be providing a list of taboo topics that writers aren’t allowed to make fun of? I’m curious as to whether the Holocaust ranks above or below feminism on said list.
This post used to contain a longer explanation as to why the review was removed. I see that explanation has been also been removed and, in fact, the new shorter explanation has already been corrected (er, “reworded”).
To me, the handling of Ted Wilson’s Holocaust review (which, admittedly, I haven’t yet read) seems sloppy and unprofessional.
wow.
shame on you, rumpus. editorial discretion my ass.
I thought that it was censored was a joke.
No?
I guess not. Guess someone freaked that it came out on Rosh Hashanah? If this isn’t totally a joke, I agree, there’s some ‘splainin to do.
Hmm. This does seem out of character for the Rumpus. I hope this generates some public discussion about the nature of this website and the editorial process behind it. For now, I will refrain from making a judgment about whether this censorship was appropriate. I appeal to the editorial staff to publish a column or an interview about this.
I love your reviews, Ted Wilson.
I love Ted’s reviews too. It was a Holocaust joke. On Rosh Hashanah. The editorial staff at The Rumpus made a call, and still offered access to the piece via Ted’s email address. That’s not censorship. That’s being an editor.
Due of the sensitive subject matter, I tried my best to make sure my review was not offensive, but unfortunately, the Rumpus editors found it so. It was their prerogative to remove the review and I think informing the readers that it could be obtained by email is a good compromise. A better compromise would be if they also gave me a hug, but I don’t live near them and hugs are very hard to mail.
My only hope is the editors feel differently about next week’s review of AIDs. (It gets fewer stars than the Holocaust did.)
Sincerely,
Ted
I am so saddened by this decision to remove Ted’s review from The Rumpus. Having just read it, I must say that I found it both funny and poignant. I hope that the editor will reconsider this censorship. To be blunt, I would have expected much more from The Rumpus (ie courage). I remain hopeful that this is just a stunt of some sort.
Disappointed with you, Rumpus.
This reminds me of the conversation (on Jezebel) after the Tosh.O rape joke incident. Are there subjects that are off-limits for comedy? Can we thoughtfully make jokes about rape or, in this case, the Holocaust?
One question we might ask ourselves is, at whose expense is the joke? A rape joke that makes fun of a rap survivor is pretty tasteless, I’ll admit. Just like a Holocaust joke that mocks Survivors would be inappropriate (on any day, not just Rosh Hashanah).
Having now read the review, it seems to mock Hitler, Holocaust-deniers, and racists. It’s subversive. But I can’t really see how it mocks the actual victims of the Holocaust. Is this an example of a tasteful, thoughtful Holocaust joke? Maybe. I think so, but I’d imagine others would disagree.
I’ve been reading a bunch of Hannah Arendt’s work on The Holocaust recently. Her arguments about the banality of evil were received with a great mix of responses, some finding it deeply unethical to present that kind of suffering as something that could be normalized or connected with normality. I came across one interpretation which drew from some correspondence in which she revealed the agony she faced when deciding whether or not to write about it this way (and raising the possibility that she was self-sacraficial in publishing it, with the aim of having people respond with the kind of visceral and emotive reaction that she thought was worthy of such horror).
An important and appropriately emotional conversation that this piece fits into in an interesting way. But conversations are difficult to have if they are shut down before they start!
Can’t believe I’m writing more here but I am.
Yes, editorial discretion is important. However I think this was handled poorly. If you didn’t like the review, it should never have gone up in the first place. You shouldn’t have had to play this discretion/censorship situation out. Isaac could have called Ted and said, hey this won’t work, at least not this week. Instead you post it, then pull it down. Which – frankly – kinda makes the rumpus staff look ignorant. Did you guys miss the fact that it was a Jewish holiday? Or was it the point?
This all feels awfully Mitt-esque. Flip floppy.
Or otherwise all of us writing in are part of a big experiment. I feel a bit like I’m in the fishbowl.
And I’m totally going to hell for comparing The Rumpus to Romney.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment, or log in if you’re already a paid subscriber.