Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg
This may be the best, or least-bad, argument yet, in the thread, for book suppression. King was afraid that one of his fictional murders was being enacted in real life, so he suppressed the novel to save lives, as he explains here.
In #15, issybird uses the word “subliminal” to describe the situation this thread is about. Whatever anyone thinks about King’s decision, suppressing books, because of a subliminal message to children, gets us into a deeper assault on freedom to read. |
I think 'book suppression' is over-the-top phrasing for an author withdrawing their work for their own reasons, which is what happened with King and more-or-less with Seuss.
To switch from books to music, the group
The KLF was enormously popular in the early nineties. For reasons of their own, after a bizarre appearance on the BRITs award show where they fired blank-filled machine guns at the audience, they announced they were retiring from music effective immediately. They stopped work on their follow-up album and deleted availability of their entire catalog.
This was done for their own reasons. I wouldn't call that censorship or music suppression or say that if a work of art is pulled it must automatically be due to outside coercion.
Sometimes an artist decides they no longer want to support their work.
I wish the Seuss books hadn't been removed from print. I wish Rage was still legally available. I wish The KLF still sold their music. But those aren't my decisions to make.