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

[4691mls]

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".

It seems that most books I look up on Goodreads have an overall star rating of about 4. I ignore that and look at the actual reviews. I usually skip the gushing five-star reviews and look for the 3-stars as those reviewers often talk about both what's good and what's bad about a book. I will spot-read a couple of 1- or 2-star reviews in case there is something truly bad about the book that would make me want to avoid it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

You are 100% correct about the gaming.

Is it really censorship if the person knows that Amazon doesn't sell that type of reading material? They are certainly free to sell elsewhere.
I know one erotic writer that puts out 3 different versions of the same story. He categorizes correctly. He puts his Amazon allowed on Amazon. He puts the not Amazon allowed on other book sellers. Different partners.

Perhaps we are using the word differently, but my understanding is if Amazon chooses not to carry a book, then it isn't censorship. It would only be censorship if the government told Amazon they couldn't carry a book.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Perhaps we are using the word differently, but my understanding is if Amazon chooses not to carry a book, then it isn't censorship. It would only be censorship if the government told Amazon they couldn't carry a book.

We were on the same page.
It amazes me how many would scream my book/product is being censored because I can't sell it everywhere. I can only sell it in certain places. These are usually the same ones that cry the distributor is hiding my genre. It doesn't show up in a standard search for book title. I always found that amusing that they couldn't find any adult books, but I could find over 100,000 just by typing 7 particular letters in the search engine.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by darryl

http://www.vulture.com/2017/08/the-t...a-twitter.html

I originally came across this link on a well known blog. It makes disturbing reading. Not only were negative reviews posted by people who openly acknowledged they had not read the book, but some commenting on the article were prepared to pronounce the original criticisms valid without reading the book, placing reliance on "trusted" sources on Twitter. Personally I doubt these trusted sources had themselves read the book.

Am I alone in being absolutely appalled by this?

Twitter, Reddit, Facebook have a place in this world but I am proud to say not particularly for me. They do have a place in our life, if only to let us know which street or alley the mob is rampaging through so we can avoid those dark dangerous streets, but it is enough to note the trends second hand via the "NEWS" and not risk contagion ourselves.

[To be able to make statements like that is why I am usually anonymous online.]

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

We were on the same page.
It amazes me how many would scream my book/product is being censored because I can't sell it everywhere. I can only sell it in certain places. These are usually the same ones that cry the distributor is hiding my genre. It doesn't show up in a standard search for book title. I always found that amusing that they couldn't find any adult books, but I could find over 100,000 just by typing 7 particular letters in the search engine.

Heck, with amazon, you don't even have to type in the search engine. It's one of the categories on the side of the page. I clicked on the link just to see what showed up (I sure hope I don't get a flood of porn in books for you from Amazon now!). There is a ton of them, and the titles and covers don't exactly leave any doubt to what it's about either.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by frahse

Twitter, Reddit, Facebook have a place in this world but I am proud to say not particularly for me. They do have a place in our life, if only to let us know which street or alley the mob is rampaging through so we can avoid those dark dangerous streets, but it is enough to note the trends second hand via the "NEWS" and not risk contagion ourselves.

[To be able to make statements like that is why I am usually anonymous online.]

My basic philosophy is never say something online that you wouldn't want to say to their face. Also, assume that anything you say is part of the public record. That's why I am never anonymous on line. pwalker is my real name and pwalker8 was part of my email address when I first signed up here.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Heck, with amazon, you don't even have to type in the search engine. It's one of the categories on the side of the page. I clicked on the link just to see what showed up (I sure hope I don't get a flood of porn in books for you from Amazon now!). There is a ton of them, and the titles and covers don't exactly leave any doubt to what it's about either.

I don't get links for those books. So no worries.

[hildea]

I think it can be OK to condemn a book without having read it. Of course, you then need to be very clear about not having read it.

A couple of examples:

• A novel where sex between a 14 year old enslaved girl and a 44 year old man who owns her is described as romance, not rape.
• A romance novel where the romantic couple is a jewish concentration camp prisoner and a SS officer who is running the concentration camp. (And where, adding insult to injury, the jewish woman converts to christianity before the novel ends.)

(Yes, both these are real novels, published recently by real publishers.)
For both these books, I have no qualms about condemning them and saying they never should have been published, based on nothing more than a very brief synopsis of the plot.

The book which the Vulture article is about doesn't seem to be in that clearly horrible category. On the other hand, that article seems very biased. I looked around a bit, and found this one, which is more nuanced, and explains what the reviewer found problematic.

Hoyt's article didn't impress me.

Originally Posted by Sarah Hoyt

And I’ll be honest, absent magic, I can’t understand how someone reading a book, or even making a book a bestseller — EVEN IF THE BOOK IS BIGOTED AGAINST A GROUP OF PEOPLE — hurts anyone. Dan Brown didn’t cause the Catholic Church to collapse in a heap. Oh, sure, it lent some fire to pre-existing hatred of the Catholic Church among Protestant denominations. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion haven’t caused Judaism to go extinct. Sure, they lent ammo to some very idiotic people who ALREADY wanted to believe the worst of Jews. Both bits of hatred pre-existed the books. Reading them or making them bestsellers didn’t physically run out and kill people or even cause people to say mean things.

...
Say it with me, ladies and gentlemen: no book ever on being read reached out and PHYSICALLY hurt any marginalized (or none marginalized. Or purple with stripes and three heads) people.

Stories have power. Of course stories don't physically hurt people. And of course a single story doesn't have a lot of power on its own. But stories contribute to how we see the world, how we interpret people and events.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hildea

I think it can be OK to condemn a book without having read it. Of course, you then need to be very clear about not having read it.

A couple of examples:

• A novel where sex between a 14 year old enslaved girl and a 44 year old man who owns her is described as romance, not rape.
• A romance novel where the romantic couple is a jewish concentration camp prisoner and a SS officer who is running the concentration camp. (And where, adding insult to injury, the jewish woman converts to christianity before the novel ends.)

(Yes, both these are real novels, published recently by real publishers.)
For both these books, I have no qualms about condemning them and saying they never should have been published, based on nothing more than a very brief synopsis of the plot.

I'm afraid I disagree. The storylines you describe don't float my boat, but some people get their kicks from things I find distasteful. I wouldn't buy such a book, but to say that nobody should be able to read it because I don't like it? No, that's going too far.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I disagree. The storylines you describe don't float my boat, but some people get their kicks from things I find distasteful. I wouldn't buy such a book, but to say that nobody should be able to read it because I don't like it? No, that's going too far.

Agreed. I'm not afraid to admit that during some periods of my life, I've read pretty dark slavery/nonconsensual sex-themed books and enjoyed them. As long as they were strictly fictional, of course. In real life, such things are as horrible for me as for any normal person. Now I agree that child/adult sex is distasteful even in fiction, but does that mean it should never be depicted? Never for titillating purposes, perhaps, but even that is somewhat gray area... 14, by the way, is legal age for sexual relationships in many countries.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Agreed. I'm not afraid to admit that during some periods of my life, I've read pretty dark slavery/nonconsensual sex-themed books and enjoyed them. As long as they were strictly fictional, of course. In real life, such things are as horrible for me as for any normal person. Now I agree that child/adult sex is distasteful even in fiction, but does that mean it should never be depicted? Never for titillating purposes, perhaps, but even that is somewhat gray area... 14, by the way, is legal age for sexual relationships in many countries.

With me, I think it would depend more on the maturity of the younger person.
Undeveloped 13 year old with an adult is just so wrong.
Younger person that is the instigator, don't put all the blame on the older one.

Anyway, people should be able to read what they want.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I disagree. The storylines you describe don't float my boat, but some people get their kicks from things I find distasteful. I wouldn't buy such a book, but to say that nobody should be able to read it because I don't like it? No, that's going too far.

There's a difference between condemning a book and saying nobody should be able to read it. I think people should be as free to condemn a book as they are to read it.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

There's a difference between condemning a book and saying nobody should be able to read it. I think people should be as free to condemn a book as they are to read it.

Saying a book never should have been published is pretty much the same as saying nobody should be able to read it. I get that some people don't want to read about controversial or taboo subjects (fictional or otherwise), but I mind it very much if they say I should not read about them either.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

Saying a book never should have been published is pretty much the same as saying nobody should be able to read it. I get that some people don't want to read about controversial or taboo subjects (fictional or otherwise), but I mind it very much if they say I should not read about them either.

No, it isn't at all the same thing. Refusing to publish is not the same as banning. There are many reasons that certain material is not suitable for publication; content is certainly one of them.

[darryl]

Hardly surprisingly, I do not agree with Hildea's comments. I don't think it is ever okay to condemn a book without at least making a bona fide attempt to read it. Then again, Hildea's examples are of books with themes that she finds very offensive. But without actually reading the book, how can she or any of us know what the book has to say about these themes? The answer seems to be that we can only do so through the filter of reviews, hopefully confining ourselves to reviews by people who have read the book. But of course we all have our own prejudices. It is a perfectly valid choice to choose not to read a book, whether or not you have read any reviews or attempt to find out more about it other than the general theme. But as Hildea said, stories do have power. Individually and collectively. This is why it is so important that topics people do regard as being offensive remain open for exploration by authors of both fiction and non-fiction. No one is going to force you to read a book. But if you want to condemn the book, read it or at least make an attempt to.

@arjaybe. You are free to condemn a book unread if you like, as hordes of Twitterer's and even older people who should know better have done in this case. But it is not okay!