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

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I don't think that condemning a book without reading should be illegal or forbidden, and probably the OP doesn't think so either. To my mind, it should not be ok in the same sense as insulting someone just because you don't like his face is not ok. Of course people do both of those things anyway, and hardly anyone in this discussion is likely to think that they should be punished by law for it. But we can discuss whether it's ok in our personal opinion or not.

Yes, exactly! And that's how I feel about some books, as well. Publishing them should not be illegal, the books should not be banned, but publishing them is not OK in my personal opinion. I wish the author/agent/editor had agreed, and had decided not to publish them, but to work on some other book instead.

Originally Posted by darryl

It is part of normal life to be exposed to material that offends and upsets us. Often this material challenges us as well, and occasionally causes some to re-think their positions. Reading is not compulsory. Hurt and offence from a book is easily avoided. Don't read it.

I wholeheartedly agree with this, and I would apply it to book criticism as well. I'm sure the authors of the books we're discussed were hurt and offended at the criticism of their books, but there's also a slim chance that it caused them to rethink their positions. Or, more likely: That others in the publishing business do so, and are slightly more likely to notice that kind of problems in future books, and discuss them with the authors.

But: I think you missed my second clarification:

Originally Posted by hildea

I think the main harm stories like these cause isn't because some readers are offended or hurt. The main harm is those readers who don't get offended, who read and like the books, sympathise with the protagonists (because that's what we usually do, if the book is competently written), and whose ideas about that part of history gets influenced, just a little bit, by what they have read. I think the world would be better if noone had read those books.

Originally Posted by Sirtel

So? It's fiction. Many fictional books, for example, idolize war; by your logic, they all should be banned. Many romance novels idolize relationships that in real life would be called abusive; should they be banned also?

I don't think banning everything is the solution. Grown and reasonably sane people are (for the most part) perfectly able to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

This is a good point, and it makes me a bit uncomfortable, which means I really need to think about it I'll answer later.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by hildea

But: I think you missed my second clarification:

I think the main harm stories like these cause isn't because some readers are offended or hurt. The main harm is those readers who don't get offended, who read and like the books, sympathise with the protagonists (because that's what we usually do, if the book is competently written), and whose ideas about that part of history gets influenced, just a little bit, by what they have read. I think the world would be better if noone had read those books.

Your last post was thoughtful and reasonable. Thank you.

However, your previous posts did leave me confused as to your position. My answer was to your particular question, to quote:

And a question to those of you who don't see a problem with these books: Can you really say, with a straight face, that stories which romanticise nazis, trivialise the horror of slavery in the US, and make light of racism and antisemitism, don't hurt people? Truly?

But your concern in your second clarification is not about people who are hurt or offended. One should assume that the readers of these books are adults who are capable of making up their own minds, and don't require your protection. I don't agree with your position, but at least your comments are based on an accurate plot synopsis which you have turned your mind to, rather than slavishly echoing the dubious opinions of an attention seeking reviewer.

[Terisa de morgan]

I think that my problem with this argument over not publishing a book because can influence to people come from my own story. A lot of time people have told me (even recently) that I shouldn't read romance because real life is not the same. Then I feel they are calling me stupid, a person not able to recognize fantasy from reality. And I've got the same feeling when I read some arguments here, sorry.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I don't understand the "because reasons just because" part. And I don't understand why I shouldn't pass on the wisdom of my trusted friend just because of hypothetical "twitter mobs."

Sorry, Reasons was just put in there as a placeholder for whatever happened to offend them today, it needed a comma afterwords as well.

For the second part, we are on opposite sides of "Because I don't like something no one can do it" so I'm not sure how else to explain it.
I don't eat at McDonalds but I'm not trying to get them shut down.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I think that my problem with this argument over not publishing a book because can influence to people come from my own story. A lot of time people have told me (even recently) that I shouldn't read romance because real life is not the same. Then I feel they are calling me stupid, a person not able to recognize fantasy from reality. And I've got the same feeling when I read some arguments here, sorry.

I completely agree: many people read - and enjoy reading - fictional accounts of things that they certainly wouldn't like to be involved with in real life. The key word here is fiction. I find it a little patronising to suggest that a reader isn't capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality.

[darryl]

@Teresa and @Harry. Quite often it seems when motives for condemnation are explored they come down to "protecting" others from exposure to content the person considers is problematic for some reason. In my view this is more than just a little bit patronising.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I completely agree: many people read - and enjoy reading - fictional accounts of things that they certainly wouldn't like to be involved with in real life. The key word here is fiction. I find it a little patronising to suggest that a reader isn't capable of distinguishing between fiction and reality.

And even kids can differentiate between fiction and real life. When I was a kid a group was trying to get The Three Stooges banned from television. They were concerned that children would try to imitate The Stooges and injure or kill other children. I know I always knew that The Three Stooges were fiction and I could not do those things in real life. That was what made it humorous.
Apache

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Apache

And even kids can differentiate between fiction and real life. When I was a kid a group was trying to get The Three Stooges banned from television. They were concerned that children would try to imitate The Stooges and injure or kill other children. I know I always knew that The Three Stooges were fiction and I could not do those things in real life. That was what made it humorous.
Apache

Not to mention Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner or Kenny in South Park or any of the multitudes of others.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by darryl

Not to mention Bugs Bunny and the Road Runner or Kenny in South Park or any of the multitudes of others.

That's only because kids couldn't get hold of explosives from Acme.

Mice with frying pans, that's where the danger lies, it's a miracle anyone survived childhood to be honest

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

That's only because kids couldn't get hold of explosives from Acme.

Mice with frying pans, that's where the danger lies, it's a miracle anyone survived childhood to be honest

Agreeing.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

So? It's fiction. Many fictional books, for example, idolize war; by your logic, they all should be banned. Many romance novels idolize relationships that in real life would be called abusive; should they be banned also?

I don't think banning everything is the solution. Grown and reasonably sane people are (for the most part) perfectly able to tell the difference between reality and fiction.

I want to agree.

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

I think that my problem with this argument over not publishing a book because can influence to people come from my own story. A lot of time people have told me (even recently) that I shouldn't read romance because real life is not the same. Then I feel they are calling me stupid, a person not able to recognize fantasy from reality. And I've got the same feeling when I read some arguments here, sorry.

I especially want to agree with this. And it's really annoying that it's mostly girls who get targeted with this: Girls are told they will learn that obsessive stalking is romantic from Twilight, but boys don't hear that they will learn to be criminals from Artemis Fowl.

I loved "Gone with the wind" as a teenager, and didn't notice until much later how racist it is. My favourite romance novel was "The flame and the flower" -- I reread it recently (carefully, it's worn to pieces from all my rereading more than thirty years ago), and for the first time really noticed that it starts with the hero raping the heroine. When one of my favourite science fiction authors died a few years ago, I reread an anthology he made which introduced me to science fiction and fantasy -- and I wanted to go back in time and give 12-year-old hildea a hug and a pile of SFF books which acknowledge the existence of women.
The punch line to stories like that is: "...and still, I turned out OK". That's what I want to say. I'm a good person, so of course I can't be racist. I'm a strong, modern woman, so of course I can't have internalised any sexism.
But of course that's not true. I'm a human being, a social animal, living in a society. Of course I'm affected by the attitudes of people around me, and the stories I've read and seen and heard. Occasionally, I stumble hard against my own prejudice, when it becomes so blatant that I can't ignore it. And those times I wonder about all the times I don't notice my own bias.

I recently read a fairly new bestseller, translated to oodles of languages. It's well written, with a thrilling plot, and appalingly racist. It's racist against a group which suffers discrimination and hate crimes today, in both US and Europe. Now, I don't think people read this book and mistake it for fact. And I don't think they read it and get all their existing opinions about that group replaced with the ones in the book. But I do think it nudges people a little bit in a more racist direction, and makes any existing prejudices a bit more entrenched, and contributes, in a small way, to continued racism and hate crimes against this specific group.
I don't think that book should be banned, but I do wish that the editor had mentioned this problem to the author. Maybe something like "Cut 100 pages, that murder subplot is too much of a coincidence, and you need to explain why the villain doesn't synthetisize the vaccine. Also, the book is really racist, fix that."

Prejudice and discrimination is probably as old as humanity, and is reinforced by all aspects of society, not just books. We're never going to get rid of it, but the least we can do is being willing to recognize it when we see it, and saying "Hey, that's not OK. Cut it out, please."

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

For the second part, we are on opposite sides of "Because I don't like something no one can do it"

Why do you say that? Is it because I defend the freedom of expression of people who say things you don't like? It seems to me that I'm in favor of more freedom, not less.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Why do you say that? Is it because I defend the freedom of expression of people who say things you don't like? It seems to me that I'm in favor of more freedom, not less.

Which side of the fence are you on?
You have said some books should have never been published (killing free speech), yet you say it is ok for you to say that because of free speech.

So are you for or against freedom of speech?
It is your right not to read a book that you find offensive, but by saying it should not have been published, that is saying you either don't believe in freedom of speech or you do believe in freedom of speech as long as what is being said doesn't offend you.

On freedom of speech either everyone can say what they want or no one can say what they want.
There is no middle ground.

But please keep saying it, I am sure whoever you are wanting to censor will appreciate the money.
I might be opposed to that book too, but as long as their are people trying to step on this other person's rights then sorry I will side with the book on principles.
I wouldn't read it but that is beside the point.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

Prejudice and discrimination is probably as old as humanity, and is reinforced by all aspects of society, not just books. We're never going to get rid of it, but the least we can do is being willing to recognize it when we see it, and saying "Hey, that's not OK. Cut it out, please."

Well, yes. That's entirely different than saying "nobody should ever publish or read this book". There have been plenty of annoying examples of prejudice in various books that have made me wish to say something similar. Of course, books are mirrors of their time and one should not expect Margaret Mitchell, for instance, to have a 21st-century mindset.

Then again, if any and all books (modern books, I mean) were always absolutely politically correct, then that would be very boring. I have enjoyed the heck out of some romances with really abusive heroes. In real life, those men should be behind bars and I would avoid them like a plague. But they have their place in romantic fantasies. Would I have enjoyed those books if their heroes had been nice, polite, respectful persons? No, not at all. Do I want men in real life to be like them? No, absolutely not.

Real life is real life and fiction is fiction. Fiction does not have to be always nice and politically correct. Well, in my personal opinion, of course.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Which side of the fence are you on?
You have said some books should have never been published (killing free speech), yet you say it is ok for you to say that because of free speech.

I never said that. I said it's okay to say that. I used "I" in my example as an example only. I think people should be free to publish it, free to criticize it and free to say it should never have been published. If they want to say that without having read it, they should be free to do that, too. See? Lots of freedom.