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

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

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

That's not exactly a quote from Heine, though; it's a quote from a character in one of his plays about the Inquisition. Where (in the inquistion, not the play) book burning (of the Koran) was followed by burnings at the stake.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's not exactly a quote from Heine, though; it's a quote from a character in one of his plays about the Inquisition. Where (in the inquistion, not the play) book burning (of the Koran) was followed by burnings at the stake.

If he disagreed with the words, then I would say it wouldn't count as a quote.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

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.

There is historical precedence to almost everything. There is no evidence for this in the US today.

I'm generally a libertarian. If some rocker wants to smash his $20,000 guitar...let him do so. If some violinist wants to smash his Stradivarius violin...let him do so. If some schmoe wants to burn his copy of a book, let him do so. As long as nobody is harmed, I should not have veto power over what others do with their property.

The urge to make others do what we think they ought to do is a more serious danger to life and liberty than some bozo burning a copy of a book.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

There is historical precedence to almost everything. There is no evidence for this in the US today.

I'm generally a libertarian. If some rocker wants to smash his $20,000 guitar...let him do so. If some violinist wants to smash his Stradivarius violin...let him do so. If some schmoe wants to burn his copy of a book, let him do so. As long as nobody is harmed, I should not have veto power over what others do with their property.

The urge to make others do what we think they ought to do is a more serious danger to life and liberty than some bozo burning a copy of a book.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

The urge to make others do what we think they ought to do is a more serious danger to life and liberty than some bozo burning a copy of a book.

The school board is guilty on both counts. They're not just disposing of property they happen to own, the point is to keep the students from reading those books. So, this isn't just about someone affecting themselves.

[AlexBell]

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).

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

Thanks so much for the link, I really appreciate the chance to read the letter, and was moved by the marvellous book when I read it some years ago.

For what it is worth I have been a Christian for more than fifty years. This is not the first time that I have been ashamed of some of my fellow Christians.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I view book burning as a positive. It means the book has struck a nerve and you now have an open channel for dialog.

A sure sign for a must read.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The school board is guilty on both counts. They're not just disposing of property they happen to own, the point is to keep the students from reading those books. So, this isn't just about someone affecting themselves.

If I were a voter in that district, my concern would be the waste of public funds and destruction of public property. I would vote the morons out.

Realistically, the burning of a few copies will not prevent anyone from reading the book.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

There is historical precedence to almost everything. There is no evidence for this in the US today.

Book burning is uncommon in the US, because of the negative publicity it creates.

I'm generally a libertarian. If some rocker wants to smash his $20,000 guitar...let him do so. If some violinist wants to smash his Stradivarius violin...let him do so. If some schmoe wants to burn his copy of a book, let him do so. As long as nobody is harmed, I should not have veto power over what others do with their property.

No one is saying he can't. No one has claimed veto power. But freedom of speech works both ways.

Of course, these weren't his books.

The urge to make others do what we think they ought to do is a more serious danger to life and liberty than some bozo burning a copy of a book.

Ignoring history is the danger.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by rkomar

The school board is guilty on both counts. They're not just disposing of property they happen to own, the point is to keep the students from reading those books. So, this isn't just about someone affecting themselves.

+1

He's not buring his own books (I agree; he's perfectly welcome to do that); he's burning books that were to be read by 32 students.

[Scott Nicholson]

Pres, I would bet a far different thing would happen today--notoriety would lead to thousands of instant digital sales as the news went viral--assuming it was even interesting enough to gain attention in these jaded days. Heck, even that pedophile guy on Amazon sold a ton of books while he was being pursued for possible criminal charges.

Vonnegut is one of my early influences and heroes. And the reality is Vonnegut will endure far longer than the McCarthys of the world. My attitude is, if someone is pissed off enough to want to burn it, then I want to read it (unless it's Snooki.)

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

If I were a voter in that district, my concern would be the waste of public funds and destruction of public property. I would vote the morons out.

Realistically, the burning of a few copies will not prevent anyone from reading the book.

You (singular) cannot vote anyone out. And if this happens to be a district full of ignorant book burners, they have elected exactly the moron they wanted. Popular opinion does not necessarily equal the right thing to do.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I've always suspected there was a direct lineage of satirical truth from Vonnegut to the Mark Twain of Letters from the Earth.

You know, I've never made that connection before, but I do believe you might be on to something there. You have inspired some (re)re-reading.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

If I were a voter in that district, my concern would be the waste of public funds and destruction of public property. I would vote the morons out.

Realistically, the burning of a few copies will not prevent anyone from reading the book.

I agree. However, book burning is not just book disposal. People throw out or recycle books all the time, and it's no big deal. Book burning is a symbolic act (a ritual of purification). So, not only do they try to keep the books from the students, they also convey the message that the books are evil. Of course, this also means that the authors of the burned books are evil, and this is what outraged Vonnegut. This goes beyond questions of property and convenient access.

[Requiem]

I think book burning and blocking of progressive thought is a complete detriment to society as a whole. For instance, what if the muckrakers from the 1900s, such as Upton Sinclair and Ambrose Bierce were silenced? What would the food industry appear like today if not for the revelations in The Jungle? And what of the Anti-War sentiments of the Vietnam Era? The list is endless.

Fear causes the silencing of a voice. With the loss of the freedom of speech we go back to the Dark Ages, and everything will be lost.

Burning a few of the books, in the grand scheme, does nothing. But silencing a publisher or author to keep them from being heard is something else altogether. Alas, the internet allows the immediate publication of all sorts of dribble, some important but most not. This all still goes to someone's individual right to publish and display their opinion. It is also your right to ignore it, read the book or work in question and make your own decision.

After pondering this for a bit, I came to realize that this same exact thing has caused the delay of many fields in mathematics and science, first to come to mind was the Catholic Church and Galileo's Dialogues... Banned by the church in 1632 and prohibited from being republished, it was not allowed to be put to paper again until 1718 and the rest of his works followed in 1758. Copernicus had the same problems. This is merely a showing of the fear of a government or entity that's views or power are put to the test.

It is my opinion that when an idea or belief that contradicts another individual's preconceived notions, it is a natural reaction to oppose the proliferation of that view as it does not coincide with one's own. The importance of teaching books and writings that differ from the norm, whether perceived or real, is to allow the students to develop an open mind, be accepting of change, and develop their own views or opinions about individual things. "Burning" a book is counterproductive to the advancement of the human species and the development of the social consciousness.