Vonnegut's Letter to the Man Who Burned V's Book

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I also have no doubt that occasionally, a book burning could have side-effects that run counter to the intent of the burners.

Book burnings aren't very popular these days, it gives the book free publicity and turns public opinion against the book burner. On the other hand, a book burning can solidify the members of a group, and make them more radical even if it turns off outsiders.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

what's annoying is that lots of people who seek to ban certain books don't even bother to read the thing. i bet they just breezed through the summary >____>

Helms actually said that when he talked about Doug's book: "I don't know what it's about and I don't want to know." We were disgusted that Helms bragged about not wanting to be able to understand the book he was condemning. It seemed to us that you'd have to understand a book if you chose to condemn it morally.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

what's annoying is that lots of people who seek to ban certain books don't even bother to read the thing. i bet they just breezed through the summary >____>

I've observed the Anti-Harry Potter movement. They have very negative attitudes toward the books, and the fact that they haven't read them, but only listened to what other people said about them is part of the reason. Many in this movement believe that Satan can get ahold of your mind simply by picking up the book and reading the words. Thus, when someone in the movement picks up Harry Potter, and actually reads it and says "this really is a good book, it's not at all like we were told!" the True Believers will simply assume that this person must have had their mind twisted by Satan when they read it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Seriously? People who burn books are not open to dialog. They've already made their minds up and certainly are not willing to listen to other opinions.

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

That's only if the book-burner is willing to engage in dialogue. I find that when people say or do indefensible things, you can try to explain why it's wrong, and a lot of times they'll argue that it's not wrong, and repeat the behavior later. As the meme goes, you can't reason someone out of a position in which they didn't reason themselves into.

Not with the burners, but with the public as a whole.

[Apache]

That's what happens when you let puppets, like Charlie McCarthy have a little bit of power.
And you can see the resemblance, both have hard empty heads.
Apache

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Helms actually said that when he talked about Doug's book: "I don't know what it's about and I don't want to know." We were disgusted that Helms bragged about not wanting to be able to understand the book he was condemning. It seemed to us that you'd have to understand a book if you chose to condemn it morally.

But then you would be seen to be the kind of morally corrupt person who reads such filth, and a hypocrite for telling others not to do so. Better safe than sorry and just keep away from it.

There is consistency to their logic, even if they're wrong-headed about it.

[QuantumIguana]

Their logic isn't consistent, it is circular.

[HarryT]

Moderator Notice
I'm afraid we've had to delete the actual letter from the first post of the thread, because it's copyrighted material. It's fine to selectively quote from a copyrighted work, but you can't reproduce the whole thing without permission.

[jgaiser]

Really Harry? The letter is posted all over the web, including lettersofnote.com, which we would have to assume had permission to publish it. For those interesting in reading the letter, here's a google search (don't want to post an actual letter link).

https://www.google.com/search?q=kurt...book%20burning

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Really Harry? The letter is posted all over the web, including lettersofnote.com, which we would have to assume had permission to publish it. For those interesting in reading the letter, here's a google search (don't want to post an actual letter link).

At least he didn't burn it

[Apache]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

At least he didn't burn it

Apache

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

At least he didn't burn it

Mac has the trash can.

Windows has the recycle bin.

OS/2 had the shredder.

Surely there is some OS with an incinerator.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Book burning isn't a call for dialog, it's the opposite. Book burning isn't aimed just at the book itself. It sends a message that next time, it won't be the books, it will be you.

Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. -- Heinrich Heine

We've got a bunch of books being burned. We don't have people being burned. I don't think it equates.

I love books. If other people want to burn their copies, they have that right. I love the US. If other people want to burn the US flags they own, they have that right.

As for not being in dialog...they have that right. I don't want to talk to them either.

If you want to complain about the way they exercise their rights, then you have that right. The publicity is probably what they are looking for. It ensures that a lot of people know how outraged they are.

If they ever come and burn my copies...now they'll have problems.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

We've got a bunch of books being burned. We don't have people being burned. I don't think it equates.

Historically, violence and book burning go hand in hand. Book burning is often a precursor to violence.

If you want to complain about the way they exercise their rights, then you have that right. The publicity is probably what they are looking for. It ensures that a lot of people know how outraged they are.

History says otherwise. Negative publicity is a powerful deterrent to book burning. What the book burners would love is for people to just sit on their hands.

If they ever come and burn my copies...now they'll have problems.

I'd rather stop them before they come after my copies. Because by the time they are strong enough to come for my copies, there won't be a thing I could do to stop them.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

We've got a bunch of books being burned. We don't have people being burned. I don't think it equates..

Not that I really want to invoke Goodwin's Law, but of course, there is historical precedence to both burning books and burning people. I'll let you figure it out.