Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Joyce Found Too Graphic, This Time by Apple
By Julie Bosman
New York Times: June 13, 2010


The question of whether James Joyce’s “Ulysses” is obscene seemed to have been settled for more than 75 years. Until last week, that is, when the creators of a Web comic version of the classic novel, called “Ulysses Seen,” said that Apple required them to remove any images containing nudity before the comic was approved as an application for the iPad.


The creators of Ulysses Seen,” an adaptation of the James Joyce classic, covered up nudity in one panel after Apple objected.

Robert Berry, the illustrator of “Ulysses Seen,” said that an image of a woman with exposed breasts was one of the offending panels in the comic version of the book. He offered to pixelate the image or cover it up with a fig leaf, suggestions that were rejected by Apple. “We basically had to lose all of her body and just tighten in on her face,” Mr. Berry said. “It is rather disappointing.”

Chad Rutkowski, the business manager for Throwaway Horse, the publisher of “Ulysses Seen,” said he mounted a vigorous defense of the nude images, particularly over the image of the “milk lady” that was eventually cropped. “I actually argued with the guy from Apple,” he said. “The way Rob drew it is important to what’s being expressed there.” In 1933, a federal judge ruled that “Ulysses” was not obscene, granting it entry into the United States. The novel is celebrated every year on June 16, or Bloomsday, when the fictional protagonist of the book, Leopold Bloom, wandered in Dublin.

Mr. Berry and Josh Levitas, the production director, began working on the comic more than two years ago and have also placed the initial installments on a Web site, ulyssesseen.com. They hoped that the comic would be used as a learning tool for college students and that fans of Joyce would download it from iTunes, where it is available free.

Mr. Berry said that he did not feel “remotely censored by Apple.” “It’s their rules,” he said. “We’re coming to their dinner party at their house.”
NYT.

No comments: