Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
What I mean is that sometimes someone sees something they find offensive (when it's not) and get all bent out of shape and want it banned.
|
Again, I doubt you’re saying that a stereotyped image of a Chinese man isn’t offensive or should be allowed in a picture book. And if not, I don’t see the relevance.
Weirdly, however, I do find your post relevant to your view of your own particular bêtes noires,
Whose Body? and
King Solomon’s Mines. It could be argued that you yourself find some things offensive that aren’t, according to other judges.
I think part of what’s interesting to me is that the issue is two-fold: is the image offensive and if so, is that justification for pulling
Mulberry Street? I say absolutely yes to the first, but I have some fixed feelings about the latter. The other five books are well lost. In essence, I’m prepared to tolerate a certain level of (relatively mild, of necessity) bigotry in service of an important and otherwise quality book, with all the usual declaimers about “a product of its time.” Pervasive bigotry would be a no-go, of course.
Going back to the marketing issue, I think another reason that
Mulberry Street had to go is its high visibility and longstanding issues. If the Foundation had only pulled the other five books, they would clearly be engaging in rankest hypocrisy.
I’m curious: how many here are familiar with
Mulberry Street? I get the impression that I might be the only person to have read it, or at least remember it clearly.