Skip

Joyce’s Ulysses Banned Again
June 10, 2010 9:08 AM   Subscribe

Joyce’s Ulysses Banned Again—by Apple, Not the Government. According to Sarah Weinman at the Daily Finance; she says that a Webcomic adaptation of the book, Rob Berry and Josh Levitas' Ulysses Seen, (previously seen here on Mefi), has been banned from iPads and iPhones because of cartoon nudity. Here is the image that is causing all the controversy. Warning: Contains crudely illustrated male genitalia. via Slate.com. And this isn't the first time. Read about the original censorship and legal battles regarding Joyce's Ulysses..
posted by Fizz (116 comments total) 4 users marked this as a favorite

 
*checks watch to confirm which century it is*
posted by The Card Cheat at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Hey it might arouse and titillate the youth, do you really want that to happen?
posted by Dick Laurent is Dead at 9:10 AM on June 10, 2010


In related news -- Pro-Porn Group: Email Steve Jobs Your Favorite XXX Video.
posted by ericb at 9:11 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


I imagine Apple thinks the world is a garden of eden
posted by infini at 9:14 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Apple is becoming more like WalMart everyday.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2010 [11 favorites]


This is why I'm now doing all of my mobile development exclusively for Android. Goodbye, Apple.
posted by BoatMeme at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2010 [7 favorites]


Look at what he is saying! The denseness of that literary reference completely ruins the titillation one might have enjoyed from a picture of a man's ho-hum. This is almost as bad as the time my old headmaster (speciality: mathematics and yelling) took a sex-ed class.
posted by marmaduke_yaverland at 9:16 AM on June 10, 2010


OMG PEEEEEN!!!
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 9:17 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Yeah, this isn't good. Apple really needs to stop the heavy-handedness and let users decide on content.

On the other hand, maybe Apple's just protecting users from crappy art? I mean, if that sample page is any indication, this comic isn't exactly gonna win any art awards.
posted by Thorzdad at 9:19 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Apple is getting a lot of bad press lately. Google isn't too happy: Google slams Apple over iPhone ad ban. While the AT&T security flaw is more the fault of AT&T versus Apple, it's not helping their branding image.
posted by Fizz at 9:20 AM on June 10, 2010


OMG SOON THEY WILL BAN THE INTERNET ON THOSE THINGS TOO I BET.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:20 AM on June 10, 2010


Well it looks like he's a flasher and Apple doesn't support flash.
posted by iconomy at 9:22 AM on June 10, 2010 [20 favorites]


So will they be banning Gray's Anatomy (not the fucking TV show, people) from ipads and iphones?
posted by spicynuts at 9:22 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Remember Bart coming out of Naked Lunch saying there's a least two things wrong with that title. Some poor kid is gonna pick up a copy of Ulysses or Finnegan's Wake thinking that there will be some good dirty parts and be very confused and bored.
posted by Babblesort at 9:23 AM on June 10, 2010


So will they be banning Gray's Anatomy (not the fucking TV show, people) from ipads and iphones?

Actually, banning the fucking TV show might be something I could jump on board with.
posted by Fizz at 9:24 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Also the iPad doesn't play OGG.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:25 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Banned, like, they won't let you go to the website? Apple is specifically deciding which websites I can go to? There goes any chance of me ever buying an iPhone or iPad.
posted by lholladay at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2010


Great. I guess adolescents will have to go back to jerking it to E. E. Cummings poems.

(And you know what they say about the size of a balloon man's goat feet, don't you?)

*whistles far and wee*
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:26 AM on June 10, 2010 [4 favorites]


> Banned, like, they won't let you go to the website? Apple is specifically deciding which websites I can go to? There goes any chance of me ever buying an iPhone or iPad.

Nah, just their App Store. You can see all the bad pr0n you want via the browser.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2010


So basically Apple is banning a book that millions own and hundreds have read?
posted by tommasz at 9:27 AM on June 10, 2010 [8 favorites]


> So basically Apple is banning a book that millions own and hundreds have read?

No, you can still read it as an ebook that you bought. Just this particular cartoon adaptation that was available on the App Store. It's a bit of a tempest in a tea pot, but still...
posted by Burhanistan at 9:29 AM on June 10, 2010


Apple is banning an app, which it has been doing for a while now. However, you can still go to www.jugfugglers.com and indulge in all the porn you want.

This isn't really news, disappointing as it is.
posted by munchingzombie at 9:32 AM on June 10, 2010


Burhanistan: "> Banned, like, they won't let you go to the website? Apple is specifically deciding which websites I can go to? There goes any chance of me ever buying an iPhone or iPad.

Nah, just their App Store. You can see all the bad pr0n you want via the browser.
"

Until AT&T creates a custom filter for iShit... Then Jobs can say "t'aint us... t'is them"
posted by symbioid at 9:33 AM on June 10, 2010


Google isn't too happy: Google slams Apple over iPhone ad ban.

So let me get this straight. Google is a search/ad company that decided to get into the smart phone business. Admob sells to Google. And now Admob (and Google) are OMG shocked / how could apple do this? Cry me a fucking river.

While the ATT security flaw is more the fault of ATT versus Apple, it's not helping their branding image.

The Apple brand is constantly rated at 1 or 2 and you're pointing to a small security flaw that almost no one out side of geek circles will ever hear about (while ignoring the problems google /facebook, etal have had with security). You're delusional.

This thread would look great on /.

Apple is specifically deciding which websites I can go to?

In one comical sentence this is why legitimate complaints against Apple can never be discussed with any intelligence on metafilter. The level of ignorance about apple/ipad/iod/iphone/jobs is straight through the roof.
posted by Dennis Murphy at 9:33 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Dennis, I was just pointing to current media about Apple. I'm sure the monster that Apple is will survive this, just saying they've been in the news a lot.
posted by Fizz at 9:36 AM on June 10, 2010


> You're delusional.

This thread would look great on /.


Well, calling people "delusional" isn't helping much.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:36 AM on June 10, 2010 [4 favorites]


It wasn't "banned" and it doesn't seem to be so OMG ULYSSES BANNED AGAIN as you're making it out to be.

From the Ulysses Seen page:

The story about our edited iPad app pages has been all over the web in the past few days, and we’d like to take the opportunity to clear something up. We weren’t banned; Apple just asked us to make some edits. We are still in the iPad app store, and we’re quite happy to be there. We were surprised that fig leaves weren’t an option, but we did comply.

Secondly, the only pages Apple has specifically ASKED us to edit are pages 36 and 37. We made the decision to edit the pages with the nude Mulligan, which we only submitted to Apple in an update, after being asked to edit those two, which appear in the version currently in the app store.


So the penis one they edited on their own.
posted by chococat at 9:36 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


I guess the question I ask is, is Ulysses available in the iPad book store? What about Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or any number of literary works which have been accused of being pornographic over the years, but which have become part of the canon? Seems they'd be pretty hypocritical to ban this cartoon adaptation but sell the original work, seeing as how it was actually brought to court on obscenity charges...
posted by hippybear at 9:38 AM on June 10, 2010


STEVE JOBS, STEPPING ON YOUR FACE, FOREVER.
posted by GuyZero at 9:39 AM on June 10, 2010 [8 favorites]


Apple is specifically deciding which websites I can go to?

In one comical sentence this is why legitimate complaints against Apple can never be discussed with any intelligence on metafilter. The level of ignorance about apple/ipad/iod/iphone/jobs is straight through the roof.


I'm not sure why you say that. I asked a question, I was corrected by people who know the answer.
So, INT +1 for me.
posted by lholladay at 9:39 AM on June 10, 2010 [6 favorites]




WFMU's Benjamen Walker on Freedom from Porn: it turns out that the iProduct comes with an iAgenda - and it totally sucks.
posted by finite at 9:41 AM on June 10, 2010


Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail!
posted by finite at 9:42 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Oh, chococat beat me to it.

It's still ridiculous that they had to edit out Mulligan's member. WTF Apple.
posted by homunculus at 9:43 AM on June 10, 2010


Just as an aside: Granted, I'm not (yet) an ebook user, but I can't see how the experience reading a big, involved tome like Ulysses would be very satisfactory on an iPad or even the easier-on-the-eyes Kindle. When I read it I took a paperback copy outdoors and wasn't much concerned if it got a bit dirty or moist, and it was something that was good to really focus on for a few pages at a time and then put down and stare at the trees. I can see the benefits of using an e-reader for articles and PDFs that I would otherwise print, but I'll keep my big books, thank you.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:43 AM on June 10, 2010


Apple is becoming more like WalMart everyday.

Any retailer that relies on economy of scale eventually becomes WalMart.
posted by clarknova at 9:44 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


> Ulysses Seen iPad webcomic gets Apple approval after cuts

Was Mulligan circumcised?
posted by Burhanistan at 9:44 AM on June 10, 2010


Is Kurt Vonnegut next?
posted by kurumi at 9:44 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


It makes sense. I mean, it's apple's store. They don't want their store associated with this kind of thing.

It would be absolutely fine if they weren't at the same time trying tooth and nail to be the ONLY SOURCE for anything!
posted by Trochanter at 9:45 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Back in my day, we called something like this a document.

Application, shmapplication...
posted by lumensimus at 9:50 AM on June 10, 2010


Why does this need to be an app? There's nothing that can't be done on the web that this guy is trying to do.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:51 AM on June 10, 2010


> Why does this need to be an app? There's nothing that can't be done on the web that this guy is trying to do.

It would look pretty snazzy in Flash.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:52 AM on June 10, 2010


Freedom from porn
posted by ReeMonster at 9:53 AM on June 10, 2010


Why does this need to be an app? There's nothing that can't be done on the web that this guy is trying to do.

The same could be said for about 180k of the apps currently available on the App Store.
posted by BoatMeme at 9:55 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


> Why does this need to be an app? There's nothing that can't be done on the web that this guy is trying to do.

The same could be said for about 180k of the apps currently available on the App Store.


Being in the App Store is usually a lot more visibility for a small shop than just having a website.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:57 AM on June 10, 2010


no i said no i wont no.
posted by chicobangs at 9:57 AM on June 10, 2010 [3 favorites]


STEVE JOBS, STEPPING ON YOUR FACEWANG, FOREVER.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


Apple is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake.
posted by Fizz at 10:01 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Also the iPad doesn't play OGG

And clearly they're none too fond of OPP.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 10:03 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


I don't care about being locked into the app store. I don't even care about being locked into AT&T. But being locked into iTunes really makes me feel like Steve Jobs' bitch.
posted by Joe Beese at 10:06 AM on June 10, 2010


It wasn't "banned" and it doesn't seem to be so OMG ULYSSES BANNED AGAIN as you're making it out to be...
"We weren’t banned; Apple just asked us to make some edits."
As I recall, Walmart didn't outright "ban" any artists, either. They just "asked" them to make some edits, both to the album covers and the lyrics of the songs themselves. Artists who refused to comply were simply "opting out" of having their product sold in the largest retail outlet in the US.

So, maybe the post was a little hyperbolic. But still, Apple has done a pretty shitty thing here. Literally Walmart-level shitty.
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:09 AM on June 10, 2010 [4 favorites]


Apple: shiny, overpriced, kinda-cute, soon to be obsolete, fashionable and censored gadgets and computers.

Fanboys: shiny, kinda-cute, fashionable gadgets and systems.
Non-fanboys: overpriced, soon to be obsolete, censored gadgets and computers.

Your choice.
posted by omegar at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


You know, I'd throw my iphone in the trash and get an android tomorrow if Google decided to play hardball and stop supporting the iphone. I think apple is playing with fire by taunting Google.
posted by empath at 10:10 AM on June 10, 2010


(on the iad/admob thing)
posted by empath at 10:11 AM on June 10, 2010


I don't really get why apple is taking on this role as censor. They should stick to what they know best: reject apps that don't run properly, crash, or don't do what they say on the tin.

Personally, I'm fairly confident that the app store's days are pretty well numbered. I'm sure for some things apps will be useful in future, but given how robust HTML5 will make our mobile sites, I presume apps like this one (why does a graphic novel need to be an app?!) will turn into an HTML5 site instead.

If apple didn't tarnish its reputation like this, perhaps the html5 mobile site/online app revolution would take longer to realize. As it is, I give it about 18 months, tops. It's future is probably limited to niche projects.
posted by Hildegarde at 10:12 AM on June 10, 2010


Being in the App Store is usually a lot more visibility for a small shop than just having a website.

You're probably right about that. I've just soured on iPhone development and the App Store in general. To me, that visibility is the equivalent of setting up a table at a junk yard flea market.
posted by BoatMeme at 10:14 AM on June 10, 2010




Hey, if you're gonna turf your iPhone, send it to me instead. I need more devices to test my apps on. Thanks. O_o.

.... When it comes to the app store, I like to think of myself as a pool boy in a tony neighbourhood. With all that implies.
posted by seanmpuckett at 10:23 AM on June 10, 2010


why does a graphic novel need to be an app?!

I have to admit, when I first saw this, I thought it was going to be something a lot more like Alice For iPad, which takes advantage of being an App in great ways. But for just showing comic drawings? Yeah, doesn't really have to be an App.
posted by hippybear at 10:26 AM on June 10, 2010


pool boy in a tony neighbourhood. With all that implies.

It implies a porn movie.
posted by Trochanter at 10:28 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


grrr said the serpent. Eve pricked her ears
posted by infini at 10:32 AM on June 10, 2010


So, maybe the post was a little hyperbolic
Well ya, that was my point. There's a bit of a different vibe if, instead of reading the breathless BANNED! BANNED! article, you read the account of the situation by the actual guys involved:

...since the original interview that contained Rob’s comments, a straightforward honest answer to the question, “What sort of changes did Apple ask you to make?” no one has asked us for a comment before running the story...The app is FREE, so please check it out if you get a chance. The edits really are not enough to ruin the experience, and if you want to see the unedited pages, you can find them on the site.^

and

Fortunately, the design of our application presents one version of the comic downloaded to your iPad and the ability to go to the website for discussion. This means that readers can still see the pages in their original form. So two versions of the comic exist for now; one on the device and one on the website. readers can decide which works better.^

I think Apple's "no nudity" policy is intensely stupid, but I don't see it as the same as the Walmart situation.
posted by chococat at 10:43 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


So this is a retelling of The Odyssey, right?

I'm pretty down on censorship, even on closed platforms, but does the world really need a comic book version of every great piece of literature?
posted by ecurtz at 10:45 AM on June 10, 2010


"STEVE JOBS, STEPPING ON YOUR FACEWANG, FOREVER."

Facewang!
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:48 AM on June 10, 2010


So this is a retelling of The Odyssey, right?

Why is Ashton Kutcher on the cover of that comic?
posted by Fizz at 10:49 AM on June 10, 2010


homunculus:It's still ridiculous that they had to edit out Mulligan's member. WTF Apple.

While Apple's policies here are bullshit, they didn't have to edit it out. They could have refused to compromise, said no and had the app pulled and still received just as much exposure as they're getting now.
posted by Cat Pie Hurts at 10:49 AM on June 10, 2010


Yeah, this has been brewing for a while. Basically when it comes to comics apps Apple are extremely inconsistent, given to randomly accepting or rejecting things that on the face of it seem very similar to each other, and sometimes on very dubious grounds.

They also seem to be mildly homophobic:

Yet Tom Bouden's adaptaton of The Importance of Being Earnest was rejected from the app store on the basis of half a dozen images, all showing two men kissing or embracing but not having sex, and none depicting full frontal nudity. Apple finally allowed the comic with big black rectangles over the "offending" images.

And the Yaoi Press YA title Zesty, which is the mildest gay-friendly comic in the world, was also rejected, even after bowdlerizations like changing "I'm strictly dickly" to "Don't get burnt, girls. I'm flaming!"

posted by Artw at 10:59 AM on June 10, 2010 [4 favorites]


Apple is running some kind of large-scale social experiment. Here is the prettiest, coolest, most awe-inspiring piece of technology ever. BUT, we're going to gradually become bigger and bigger dicks about how you can use it. At what point will you finally say, "Enough! I'll take the ugly alternative?"

Why can't megalomaniacs just use their powers for good?
posted by callmejay at 10:59 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Why is Ashton Kutcher on the cover of that comic?

He's gonna jump out of that big horse and "punk" some Trojans.
posted by ecurtz at 11:01 AM on June 10, 2010


Apple must be flattered that every tiny happening with their products gets so much publicity.

This is being blown way out of proportion. It's not like Walmart and it's not "censorship".

You can still get access any website you want on the iPad and iPhone, they just don't want nudity available in their app market. Whether or not you disapprove, they know that some people out there DO disapprove, and allowing anything with nudity to be available through their app store without warning or rating would upset a significant number of people and would therefore mean that this would be in bad taste.

If you don't want it or don't approve, don't buy it. The competition has great products.

I compare this situation to people who bitch endlessly about iTunes/iPods. There are excellent alternatives that work just as well.
posted by hellslinger at 11:01 AM on June 10, 2010


Guess they never got to the part where Bloom faps on a beach while ogling young girls.
posted by naju at 11:04 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


why does a graphic novel need to be an app

Beacuse the iPhone/Pad has a weird model for "Apps".

StupidAnalogyTime: Traditional computer systems divide files into two kinds: programs and documents. Programs are like verbs; they are ways to do stuff to something. Documents are nouns; they're the somethings that stuff is done to. Verbs are actions; nouns are things. The standard computer model most of us are used to is verb-object: "Do stuff-to things".

The iOs doesn't make that distiction, not in it's primary screen interface. There a a few screens of icons. Each icon does stuff in a particular way. iOs prioritizes by verb, by saying "Here's all the stuff you can do".

This works great for things like games or gadgets. The "sentances" are easy to understand. "Play Plants vs Zombies." "Show me a map." "Fart like a ten-year-old."

Look at those commands again. They're not really verbs at all. They all contain implied nouns: "Do this to that". There's always an object, even if it's hidden.

This causes fudges. Music becomes "Play a song from my library". Books are "Show me a book from my library". The library or collection becomes the implied object. This is awkward because each program has to maintain it's own "library", system of documents. There's no general way on the iOs to get multiple programs, verbs, to act on one library, the set of nouns on your device.

The authors of the graphic novel had a choice. They could have offered it for sale via Kindle, or some other app, and put it into that apps library. That meant making deals with a publisher, possibly a bunch, if they want it in a comic books app and perhaps in iBooks too, which is a hassle. Or, they could put a thin wrapper of a reader program on it and sell it via the Apple app store, which has higher visibility.

It feels weird, because on a conventional computers (Windows-, Mac- and Linux-lands), you would just double click on a file and the default verb, program, would run: "With this thing, do the default stuff." Or, possibly, you would open the reader program of your choice and complete the sentance on your own by loading the file manually.

Steve Jobs and Apple think that subject/object sentances are too complicated to handle. They may be right for a phone. But it makes for weird choices for people who want to sell media content, nouns rather than programs, or verbs.
posted by bonehead at 11:04 AM on June 10, 2010 [3 favorites]


So this is a retelling of The Odyssey, right?

Um... you're joking, right? I mean, sure it is... but it sure isn't.
posted by hippybear at 11:07 AM on June 10, 2010


That analogy is like a leaky screwdriver. :P
posted by cowbellemoo at 11:16 AM on June 10, 2010


Here is the prettiest, coolest, most awe-inspiring piece of technology ever.

what
posted by twirlip at 11:21 AM on June 10, 2010


hellslinger: Whether or not you disapprove, they know that some people out there DO disapprove, and allowing anything with nudity to be available through their app store without warning or rating would upset a significant number of people and would therefore mean that this would be in bad taste.

Then they should put a fucking warning on it, not reject the application unless the creators church it up. I doubt anyone who has a problem with cartoon nudity would be interested in a comic based on a 650-page novel full of defecation, urination, masturbation, blasphemous quips, adultery, and yes, nude bathing.
posted by Houyhnhnm at 11:23 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


why does a graphic novel need to be an app

Bonehead has some of it there. ALso it has to be remembered that when people first started getting the idea of doing comics on the iPhone came along there wasn't really a way of seperating content from an App, or of getting money from someone buying that content. So you pretty much had to buncle your comic with it;s own reader and sell that.

Here's how things looked from 2008,

(the comic in question in that post, Murderdrome, got banninated - In retrospect it never really had a chance of getting through with "murder" in the title, but back then it seemed plausible. Sigh... )

Things seem to have changed since then, with the arrival of Comixology in particular.

(some people have suggetsted using ePub. It doesn't really seem well suited TBH)
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on June 10, 2010


God, I tried to read Ulysses. I wish it had been banned before it ever got published.

(That was a joke. It's my right to not have to read something I find tedious. So I didn't. And I don't actually wish it had been banned. Sorry if I insulted all the Ulysses fans. It may not actually be as tedious as I found it to be 25 years ago. But I don't think I am going to try to read it again. Even in comic book form.)
posted by Xoebe at 11:37 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Xoebe, It's been at least that long for me, as well. I hope to try again, but I've never done a face plant harder than I did on Joyce.
posted by Trochanter at 11:46 AM on June 10, 2010


I guess the question I ask is, is Ulysses available in the iPad book store? What about Lady Chatterley's Lover? Or any number of literary works which have been accused of being pornographic over the years, but which have become part of the canon?

Good question. Also, can you buy e-books like Best Erotica of 2010 or whatever? Do they sell erotic e-books, or do those count as porn too?

They have Tongue & Tied Spank! Series (iTunes Store link) and Erotic Short Stories: Confessions of a Porn Star (iTunes Store link) in Audiobooks. As one user describes it:
I can't get enough of the British accent and I love the voice. Good sound quality. The review below this one says no lesbo, that is INCORRECT. It is true that there is way more butt play than I expected so wifee was turned off. First story her first anal, then first DP, then first lesbo. I liked them all, going to buy others now by same author.
I wonder how they distinguish between "porn" and "erotica" in their ebooks/iBooks?

(There's also a True Confessions of a London Spank Daddy iPad app (iTunes Store link)).
posted by mrgrimm at 11:48 AM on June 10, 2010


Xoebe.. that was a perfect example of how to make a sarcastic joke on MetaFilter.. make the joke, and then write five more sentences to be sure you don't offend anyone!

I'd place myself in the anti-apple camp on this one. sure it's not really "censorship" but this country is just so damn PRUDE in general. It's really how most people around the world see us. So painfully prude. I mean, we haven't seen every "offending" image in that app.. but the one of the little guys ding-ding as he dives in the water?? Are we serious? While you can probably buy video games on the iPad where you can blow a guys testicles off with a rail gun. America.. bunch of prudes!
posted by ReeMonster at 11:49 AM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


(Here be Ulysses spoilers!) Let's take stock, shall we?

   • Buck Mulligan bathes naked after making blasphemous jokes all morning
   • Stephen urinates on the beach; contemplates "Wilde's love that dare not speak its name"
   • Bloom defecates in the outhouse and wipes with the morning newspaper
   • Bloom's wife, Molly, is having an affair with her manager (offstage)
   • Bloom maintains an epistolary flirtation with another woman
   • Bloom masturbates while watching girls on the beach ("and O!")
   • There is a very long scene with Bloom and Stephen in a brothel (where Stephen is a regular)
   • Stephen and Bloom urinate in Bloom's yard
   • Molly briefly fantasizes about having a tryst with Stephen


There are probably additional "objectionable" things in the novel that I have forgotten. From what I understand, the comic is only the first episode, so far. If Apple has a problem with Buck Mulligan's penis, what are they going to think of the rest of the book?
posted by Houyhnhnm at 11:52 AM on June 10, 2010


Is Kurt Vonnegut next?

*
posted by uncleozzy at 11:53 AM on June 10, 2010 [2 favorites]


> Was Mulligan circumcised?

What, you've never read Finnegan's Bris?
posted by organic at 11:54 AM on June 10, 2010


Steve Jobs offers you Freedom from Porn Freedom.
posted by rocket88 at 12:09 PM on June 10, 2010


Mulligan is probably not circumcised because he makes a few derisive jokes about "Jehovah, collector of prepuces," so it seems they got that detail correct. Bloom is also uncircumcised, even though many characters, including Mulligan, think he is Jewish. (He does have Jewish heritage, but he was raised Protestant, and he converted to Catholicism when he married Molly.)
posted by Houyhnhnm at 12:18 PM on June 10, 2010


The way this post is written is over-the-top and misleading. Ulysses itself wasn't the problem, it was a webcomic 'adaptation' of it. And it wasn't banned at all, but asked to remove the peen. Seems kinda dishonest to go around saying "Apple banned Ulysses!
posted by statolith at 12:36 PM on June 10, 2010


apple banned penii of tubby naked men

there, ftfy
posted by infini at 12:49 PM on June 10, 2010


Secondly, the only pages Apple has specifically ASKED us to edit are pages 36 and 37. We made the decision to edit the pages with the nude Mulligan, which we only submitted to Apple in an update.

Hope they covered that guy's dork with an apple -- or maybe the back of Jobs' head.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:13 PM on June 10, 2010


Well, I guess Apple would have a problem with The Book of Genesis too - illustrated by R Crumb. [Full frontal male and female cartoon nudity!]

I'm thinking the female nudity would probably pass.
posted by Rashomon at 1:38 PM on June 10, 2010


"I'm thinking the female nudity would probably pass."^

Only if it was published by Playboy or Sports Illustrated.
posted by mkhall at 2:56 PM on June 10, 2010


You can still get access any website you want on the iPad and iPhone, they just don't want nudity available in their app market. Whether or not you disapprove, they know that some people out there DO disapprove, and allowing anything with nudity to be available through their app store without warning or rating would upset a significant number of people and would therefore mean that this would be in bad taste.


Is there some other way to download apps for a non jailbroken iPhone? Because, if there isn't, this is stupid censorship that could be avoided by simply adding a warning or rating. Come to think of it, why isn't there a simple app store attribute which provides a "Migh be offensive to small minded, repressed, pointless people that protest and boycott and write letters about pictures of people that, somehow SOMEHOW, offend them."

This picture is an elongated letter U and a smaller letter U attached to a drawing of a guy. It's a cartoon representation of something that approximately half of every single person has. It can't hurt you! We should wallpaper these fuckers' homes with goatse.

I don't care if this post is an overreaction to a tiny piece of censorship. There's no such thing as a tiny piece of censorship. Freedom from porn is the stupidest fucking thing I have ever heard.
posted by doublehappy at 2:59 PM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


Houyhnhnm, I completely disagree. Apple is not the government and is not dictated by a constitution and therefore under no obligation to allow anything they don't want onto their products.

By purchasing their products you endorse their design decisions, which includes the kind of content that they allow on their products.

doublehappy, imagine you were an artist/photographer. An owner of a coffee shop in your neighborhood approached you and asked you if you wanted to display and sell your artwork her in establishment, provided that you only did not display any of your work that had nudity. Would you accuse her of being a fascist and accept her terms, or would you decline her offer, pass up the opportunity on the principle that she does not allow nudity in her coffee shop?

It seems there is a misplacement of entitlement here.
posted by hellslinger at 3:50 PM on June 10, 2010


Does anyone know if there are any apps for breast-feeding techniques or advice? If so, do they have illustrations or images that have women with exposed nipples?

Would that be allowed?
posted by Fizz at 3:53 PM on June 10, 2010


Ya, the no-nudity policy is ridiculous. And it should be mocked.
But I kind of don't get the anxious, handwringy, "THEY'RE CENSORING THIS CLASSIC LITERATURE THAT I'VE NEVER READ" panic that some people seem to jump on, as they head home to happily watch shitty programs on their shitty American networks that wouldn't allow a hint of what's in Ulysses. (Maybe the networks can say "Ass" now, I can't keep up.) This was a (free) app designed for a specific device (iPad) that has pretty widely-known and controversial guidelines and policies. They kind of had to know what they were dealing with. Maybe they didn't realize the extent of the prudishness on Apple's end but they seem to be acting like it's more of a small drag to alter the pages than the fucking Fahrenheit 451 that people are making it out to be.

And, again, as I understand it from reading the Ulysses Seen site, they were asked to edit this page (female nudity) and this one (female nudity); they edited the penis on their own.
posted by chococat at 4:15 PM on June 10, 2010


I completely disagree. Apple is not the government and is not dictated by a constitution and therefore under no obligation to allow anything they don't want onto their products.

Of course they have no obligation. The outrage is that Apple apparently thinks this non-sexual illustration of a naked male is potentially offensive and therefore users should not even be given the option to download it. This application is not the new Brent Corrigan video; it's a comic based on one of the most important works of Modernist literature. There's a huge difference, and I think Apple's response was ridiculous. As the author of the linked article writes, "Apple can censor what it wants, and the rest of us can like it or not. But Apple is making a mockery of its own anti-porn stance in this instance. There is no clear reason why it should define obscenity more narrowly than the U.S. courts do. And even if there were, broadening the definition of porn to frivolous extremes turns the App Store into a joke at a moment when viable alternatives are emerging."

By purchasing their products you endorse their design decisions, which includes the kind of content that they allow on their products.

I don't purchase their garish products, so don't write "you" unless you actually mean me. However, if I did buy the stupid thing, I think I should be able to do what I want with it. I don't need Apple to play arbiter of taste.
posted by Houyhnhnm at 4:19 PM on June 10, 2010


imagine you were an artist/photographer. An owner of a coffee shop in your neighborhood approached you and asked you if you wanted to display and sell your artwork her in establishment, provided that you only did not display any of your work that had nudity. Would you accuse her of being a fascist and accept her terms, or would you decline her offer, pass up the opportunity on the principle that she does not allow nudity in her coffee shop?

I think a more accurate analogy is that you decide to purchase a coffee shop to display your artwork in as a side venture, but the person selling it to you includes language in the contract which forbids you from hanging whatever you want on the walls, despite the property having been sold to you complete and free of lien.

I buy something, it's not the property of the manufacturer any longer. It's mine. If I were leasing a computer from someone, I might have to consider usage terms, just as if I were hanging artwork in SOMEONE ELSE'S COFFEE SHOP. But if it's mine, there are real ramifications to being held in limbo about what I can do with it.

That said, I understand that Apple's walled garden thing keeps out malicious apps and the kind of thing which are rampant in the Windows world. (Anyone ever download a sparkly cursor program only to discover it was a keylogger? They're everywhere.) But the censoring of content seems like it's going beyond protecting itself and its horde of network-capable devices from maliciousness and is crossing over into morality policing. THAT is what I object to.
posted by hippybear at 4:32 PM on June 10, 2010


By purchasing their products you endorse their design decisions, which includes the kind of content that they allow on their products.

No. I purchase their products but I disagree with most of their decisions and actions. In my opinion, Apple is a shitty company run by a megalomaniac that happens to make really good - but purposely not great - products.
posted by rocket88 at 4:39 PM on June 10, 2010


doublehappy, imagine you were an artist/photographer. An owner of a coffee shop in your neighborhood approached you and asked you if you wanted to display and sell your artwork her in establishment, provided that you only did not display any of your work that had nudity. Would you accuse her of being a fascist and accept her terms, or would you decline her offer, pass up the opportunity on the principle that she does not allow nudity in her coffee shop? [Posted by hellslinger]

That's a nice argument, and I see where you're coming from, but, yeah, damn right I'd pass up the opportunity on principle. Art is art. I know lots of people with genitalia, and while I don't necessarily go out of my way to look at it all the time, it's not offensive, and it's not going to cause psychological damage to me. So, if my art contained nudity (and I was confident in my art) then I'd plead my case for a while and then pass up the opportunity. Then I'd maybe rent out the shop next door and fill the windows with pictures of cocks. I wouldn't.
posted by doublehappy at 4:59 PM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


I also have issues with U.S. standards of obscenity being imposed outside of the U.S. but I've never been very articulate or unemotional on this issue, so I'll leave it there.

Also, I can't use my iPhone as (useful) portable storage, and that fucks me the fuck off.
posted by doublehappy at 5:05 PM on June 10, 2010


This is not very different from Apple asking an author to soften or otherwise modify his or her book lest Apple not make it available in their eBook store. Yes, it's Apple's right to do so, but that doesn't mean we as consumers must stand for it.
posted by Houyhnhnm at 6:47 PM on June 10, 2010


^ nor must the artist bow to the demands.
posted by radiosilents at 7:19 PM on June 10, 2010 [1 favorite]


If you don't want it or don't approve, don't buy it. The competition has great products.

Somebody mentioned this on some other forum (or was it here?), but the main issue here is that there's no competition for the AppStore _inside_ the iOS eco-system. I like the iPhone as a hardware, and would like to be able to run anything reasonable with an expectation of support from Apple; this is how it was with other phones and all computing devices before the iPhone. Additionally, there was no upfront expectation that app content will be censored in the first place, so people buying into this eco-system had no idea, for example, that content from classic works will be censored for drawings of human phalluses.

That said, as dickish a move this is, there's a clear Pareto rule thing going on here; as Jobs had mentioned in the iPhone 4 keynote, most of the apps are approved in a week and without problems. But as the iOS eco-system becomes big - there was some suggestion that 8% of all _Singapore_ uses an iPhone or an iPad in the blogs in the last few days - it is becoming the dominant mode of transmitting cultural objects, and concerns on censorship and a lack of a clear policy on it are very valid indeed.
posted by the cydonian at 8:12 PM on June 10, 2010


The answer is clear. If a woman breast feeds a given person, that person is allowed to see her breasts on the IPad.
posted by telstar at 12:02 AM on June 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Those saying it isn't censorship are right, of course. But that doesn't change the fact it's a bunch of bullshit. I'm due to replace my phone. Android or another iPhone? Oh, damn. There's a must-have app that apparently isn't on Android (Swiss train & bus schedules. WTF, SBB? How can you be so right, and yet get this wrong?)

Nice thing about dumping iphone, I can dump itunes. O.M.G., I've nearly convinced myself. Itunes is the crappiest piece of junk software I've had to use in years (that's saying a lot, as I run Linux, with plenty of so-so applications).

I've put some effort in to ending dependence on Windows (not quite 100%, due to some devices that yet remain). I am starting to understand that Apple dependence is no better.
posted by Goofyy at 6:27 AM on June 11, 2010


The answer is clear. If a woman breast feeds a given person, that person is allowed to see her breasts on the IPad.

you're planning to distribute them across arabia as a peace motion?
posted by infini at 7:23 AM on June 11, 2010


Also, I can't use my iPhone as (useful) portable storage, and that fucks me the fuck off.

Yeah, that's why phones in general aren't very appealing to me as mobile devices.

If I'm gonna lay down a couple hundred bucks on something to play music, movies, take pictures/video, email/IM, etc., I'm gonna want to be able to load it with as many files as can fit on the device, take it to any computer in the world, and transfer all those files to it. I would say email/IM would be the #1 feature I need, but file transfer is #2.

If you want a true mobile convergence device, it has to transfer files en masse.

But as the iOS eco-system becomes big - there was some suggestion that 8% of all _Singapore_ uses an iPhone or an iPad in the blogs in the last few days - it is becoming the dominant mode of transmitting cultural objects, and concerns on censorship and a lack of a clear policy on it are very valid indeed.

Does Apple even have ANY publicly available requirements or policies for iTunes Store app submissions? I couldn't find anything on the Apple support site.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:42 AM on June 11, 2010


At what point will you finally say, "Enough! I'll take the ugly alternative?"

I hardly consider my 4G EVO an ugly alternative. It makes my old 3GS look like yesterday's tech with the added Apple bonuses of censorship, no flash, data limits, and gouging. Oh, I also have free tethering.

There's some read ugliness in the mobile market now, but it certainly isn't the Android based phones. Its Jobs slimy mug leering at you and yelling "SHUT OFF YOUR WIFI!!"

I'm sure Apple will weather any storm the same way stores like Walmart do, but I don't shop at either and feel a little sorry for those who do.
posted by damn dirty ape at 11:39 AM on June 11, 2010 [1 favorite]


Apples sells the Ulysses audiobook in the music store, in abridged and unabridged versions.

I've found that the audiobook is the way to go. With the text it's sometimes difficult to spot the shifts from stream of consciousness to narration, and the Irish references and phrasings can be very difficult to figure out. A trained actor adds some inflection to the text, which helps you pick up so much more of what's going on.
posted by mattgeeknz at 10:53 PM on June 11, 2010


I've found that the audiobook is the way to go. With the text it's sometimes difficult to spot the shifts from stream of consciousness to narration, and the Irish references and phrasings can be very difficult to figure out. A trained actor adds some inflection to the text, which helps you pick up so much more of what's going on.

Well, then, you're going to love what's going on this weekend...
posted by hippybear at 7:37 AM on June 12, 2010


Well, then, you're going to love what's going on this weekend...

Maybe. I was in Dublin, by coincidence, for the cenetenary of Bloomsday in 2004. It was an exceedingly odd little festival.
posted by mattgeeknz at 12:58 PM on June 12, 2010




Update: The app has now been approved uncensored.
posted by Baldons at 6:03 AM on June 15, 2010


So if you can get the entire internet angry then your app will be approved. I feel sorry for the guys without the good PR or with causes too boring to make it to metafilter.
posted by damn dirty ape at 9:04 AM on June 15, 2010


See also that editorial cartoonist dude.
posted by Artw at 9:33 AM on June 15, 2010




« Older There Is A LIght That Never Goes Out   |   A nightmare of a reelection for Sally Kern Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post