Is it ever okay to condemn a book without even attempting to read it?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The danger comes when you go from "I don't want to read that book" to "nobody else should be allowed to read it either".

Bingo.
Or crossing the line to "I have to make sure innocent morons who don't have the outstanding judgement I do don't accidentally read it and come to their own conclusions."

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

There have been a few like that. The reason they are pulled has nothing to do with consumers feelings and everything to do with they violate the terms of service.
You can publish just about any subject you want. There are several subjects that you can't publish if they are for titillating purposes. (Does the subject violate the law in most states or countries? If yes, those are subjects that can't be published for titillating purposes.)

In general, Amazon is a business and is free to choose not to carry a book if they feel that it would be bad for business. Of course the flip side of pulling a book because some object to it is that you normally get blow back when you that. That's one reason that Amazon carries some anti-Amazon books.

Just to give my 2 cents worth on the overall topic of the thread, people are certainly free to condemn anything they want to, and I'm free to ignore them, which is what I normally do.

When looking at a given book, I know up front that certain authors or subjects will attract a group of "reviewers" who give stars based on the author or subject, not the book in hand. I tend to look at the spread of the ratings, and then read the more helpful reviews. You know the ones that don't start "Author X is evil and I wish he would die a horrible death" or "Author X is the most wonderful person in the world".

[issybird]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Personally I think it's dishonest to "review" any book you've not read, but regrettably it's a common practice.

I think you've only got to read enough of a book to have an informed opinion on why you dislike it to write a legitimate review. Sometimes that could be only a few pages, if the faults are egregious.

Originally Posted by Blossom

Thus the reason it's called fiction Jon. It's written for women by women. In a perfect world this is what men would be like.

I'm not saying men can't read or write the genre but just know that 95% of it men are going to be protrayed as what women wish them to be like.

Uh, no. A thousand times no. Way over-generalizing here.

This particular woman would have to give up reading if only romance were on offer. Nor would I have any interest in the typical romantic hero. Controlling much? And that's just for starters.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think you've only got to read enough of a book to have an informed opinion on why you dislike it to write a legitimate review. Sometimes that could be only a few pages, if the faults are egregious.

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. One of my faults is an inability to abandon bad books. I always cling to the (rarely-fulfilled) hope that they'll improve .

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. One of my faults is an inability to abandon bad books. I always cling to the (rarely-fulfilled) hope that they'll improve .

I think that is probably universal HarryT. We don't like to think that we've spent good $ on something that turns out to be a dud.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

In general, Amazon is a business and is free to choose not to carry a book if they feel that it would be bad for business. Of course the flip side of pulling a book because some object to it is that you normally get blow back when you that. That's one reason that Amazon carries some anti-Amazon books.

Just to give my 2 cents worth on the overall topic of the thread, people are certainly free to condemn anything they want to, and I'm free to ignore them, which is what I normally do.

When looking at a given book, I know up front that certain authors or subjects will attract a group of "reviewers" who give stars based on the author or subject, not the book in hand. I tend to look at the spread of the ratings, and then read the more helpful reviews. You know the ones that don't start "Author X is evil and I wish he would die a horrible death" or "Author X is the most wonderful person in the world".

Please reread my post. Is Anti-Amazon #1 against the law and two is it for titillating purposes? If the answer is no, then the subject is ok.

In theory, the only genre that should be affected is erotica. If the authors tried to put their smut (for lack of a better term) where it belonged, Amazon would kick it out before it ever got put out for sale. Yes, they do check that genre before letting a book go on sale. To make sure it doesn't violate the terms of service which are for that part in plain and very simple English.

In reality, the smut peddlers know this and so they purposely miscategorize to get their "books" on Amazon. This in turn gets people outraged for more than one reason.

Just wanted to add there are other booksellers that have no problems with selling those types of books.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I certainly wouldn't disagree with that. One of my faults is an inability to abandon bad books. I always cling to the (rarely-fulfilled) hope that they'll improve .

I've had books and projects I always hoped would get better. They never did.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The danger comes when you go from "I don't want to read that book" to "nobody else should be allowed to read it either".

If a book breaks the law, which a book containing instructions for child molestation certainly would (in the UK, anyway), the bookseller would be breaking the law in selling it. If a book merely offends you (as some books seem to offend some religious nuts), then that's a perfectly valid reason not to buy it yourself, but no reason at all to think that you have the right to let your morals dictate what other people should or should not be allowed to read.

True but my point was that some (such as my example) would be worthy of being condemned without reading. Probably there are very few that would fit in that area but there are undoubtably a few others. While Amazon did pull the book quickly the self-publish era we live in makes it easier for such books to be released into the public venue. A traditional publisher would I think have refused to even consider having it up for sale of course.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think that is probably universal HarryT. We don't like to think that we've spent good $ on something that turns out to be a dud.

It's far from universal. I abandon books all the time. The money's already been spent; my time has not and that also has value.

You might want to look up sunk cost fallacy.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by crich70

True but my point was that some (such as my example) would be worthy of being condemned without reading. Probably there are very few that would fit in that area but there are undoubtably a few others. While Amazon did pull the book quickly the self-publish era we live in makes it easier for such books to be released into the public venue. A traditional publisher would I think have refused to even consider having it up for sale of course.

I do believe even before the age of Internet, a person could potentially find any type of book or movie. One just had to know where to look. It wasn't they weren't there, they just were not out in the open.

FWIW: Some of the scenes in today's traditional published books give me a pause at times.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I do believe even before the age of Internet, a person could potentially find any type of book or movie. One just had to know where to look. It wasn't they weren't there, they just were not out in the open.

FWIW: Some of the scenes in today's traditional published books give me a pause at times.

True. There were without doubt books that were 'independently' printed that weren't for the mainstream reader. Some Victorian Erotica for example or one can imagine a book like the Kama Sutra as another example. And at one time magazines like Playboy would have been sold under the counter. They were a lot harder to distribute though I would think than such would be now.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by crich70

True. There were without doubt books that were 'independently' printed that weren't for the mainstream reader. Some Victorian Erotica for example or one can imagine a book like the Kama Sutra as another example. And at one time magazines like Playboy would have been sold under the counter. They were a lot harder to distribute though I would think than such would be now.

We went two different places but I love your examples much better than mine.
IIRC: In some places, Playboy or Hustler were outlawed completely by city ordinances.
Other places only certain stores could carry them. Even in the late 80's, they had to be sealed in plastic so kids couldn't read them. The hard core books and magazines had to be sold in adult book stores. (One industry the Internet has almost if not completely put out of business. )

[Blossom]

Originally Posted by issybird

Uh, no. A thousand times no. Way over-generalizing here.

This particular woman would have to give up reading if only romance were on offer. Nor would I have any interest in the typical romantic hero. Controlling much? And that's just for starters.

I know there are women out there who do not read romance but my point is men in romance are mostly written by women for women on how they would like men to be.

There are also two types of romance

Old School Romance think typical Bodice rippers, outdated ideas and controlling, abusive heroes.

New School Romance which women are empowered and the men who supports them fulfill their dreams. There still are the occasional controlling Alpha but heroines are smarter now, stronger. They aren't doormats the old school heroines are known to be. They educate their hero in how things are going to be if they are to be together.

I know 50 Shades which isn't romance did bring a whole slew of authors trying to bring back the old school controlling hero and doormat heroine but that quickly die out the majority of romances published are modern characters with modern ideas.

Sent from my Nexus 7

[Hellmark]

The only time it is OK to condemn a book without reading, is if it is in support of something appalling. Like, I think it is ok to reject a book by David Duke without reading it, since it is apparent most of his books are racist in nature.

Outside of that, really, no.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

The only time it is OK to condemn a book without reading, is if it is in support of something appalling. Like, I think it is ok to reject a book by David Duke without reading it, since it is apparent most of his books are racist in nature.

Outside of that, really, no.

Good point, so now I have a question for you. I know you are rejecting the book as something you would never read. The question is are you saying that no one should read his books? Why should what another person reads be any of your concern?

There is a certain newspaper you couldn't pay me to read because they consistently publish one particular reader's comments, but I wouldn't tell others not to read it.

Not googling David Duke. I know he is an extremist.