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

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

Very true. So is it not only reasonable to expect that someone calling for a book not to be published or withdrawn from publication are actually themselves familiar with the content?

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

But that poses the same problem: who gets to judge? If a publisher decides they personally don't want to publish something, fine, it's their call. I have no problem with that. But if someone thinks it's their right to decide for all the others what they should read and what not, then yes, I have a problem with such an attitude. I want to decide for myself what I want to read. Of course there are exceptions (mostly nonfiction - like a book teaching how to make a bomb or how to kill people, such books are directly harmful), but as to the vast majority of subjects, no one should be able to decide for me what's suitable for my reading. One publisher might refuse to publish what another accepts, or the author can self-publish, those are all valid options and perfectly ok. It's not ok to say "I think the subject matter is offensive and therefore no one should ever publish it". It might be offensive to you, but not to many other people. Unless you can prove that reading the book can cause direct harm to others, for example detailed instructions how to make a bomb that can kill people.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. I don't think censure is ok, except for a very few exceptions.

[Catlady]

It's perfectly fine for me to say something should never be published and no one should ever read it. I'm not the dictator of the world; I don't have the power to force others to my will.

I'm allowed to use my judgment and to state forcefully that something is offensive, horrible, and unworthy of ever seeing the light of day. And if that persuades other people to avoid it, so much the better.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's perfectly fine for me to say something should never be published and no one should ever read it. I'm not the dictator of the world; I don't have the power to force others to my will.

I'm allowed to use my judgment and to state forcefully that something is offensive, horrible, and unworthy of ever seeing the light of day. And if that persuades other people to avoid it, so much the better.

Here is the thing. I understand this is just your opinion but let me tell you how I interpreted your post.
Your first paragraph would totally make me want to buy that book, because you are trying to dictate what everyone else should read.. You sound like those people that tried to kidnap me because my mother had read a book.
On the second paragraph, the more forcefully you state something, the more likely it is to backfire.
Here are 3 examples: The Exorcist, 50 shades of grey and the Da Vinci Code.
All had very loud distractors. All were best sellers.

It is better to state quietly. I can't say I have ever found a book I thought shouldn't be published. I take that back, I did find one. It was self-published. It is also no longer for sale because the author did take it down. It did fit your description in more ways than one.
As far as main stream books, I can't say I have found any.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Catlady

It's perfectly fine for me to say something should never be published and no one should ever read it. I'm not the dictator of the world; I don't have the power to force others to my will.

I'm allowed to use my judgment and to state forcefully that something is offensive, horrible, and unworthy of ever seeing the light of day. And if that persuades other people to avoid it, so much the better.

The question is it ever okay is not asking whether you can but whether you should. Of course you can condemn a book unread. This is what the ignorant Twitterers who piled on the Black Witch hate bandwagon did. Though they have been rightly criticised I am yet to see the suggestion that they should have been stopped from doing so. Your statement that "It's perfectly fine" is a very general one. In the case of the Black Witch I would say you can condemn it unread but you should not. It is not "perfectly fine" in that instance. And this is the question. Are there ever any occasions where it is?

IMHO the only occasion is where the Book is truly dangerous. One example given above is a book which gives practical directions for making a bomb. There are of course other similar instances. Anything less and the Bubble Children can easily avoid irreparable mental damage by simply not reading the book concerned. Perhaps the like-minded snowflakes could appoint a censorship committee to ensure that they are never forced to read outside of their comfort zone. Based on some news reports it may be that some of our universities are already tending in this direction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by darryl

@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!

It certainly is okay. For instance, if someone I respect and whose judgement I trust says they read a book that should never have been published, I might take their word for it and condemn it to my do not read list. Does that make me a Twitter twit?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

But that poses the same problem: who gets to judge? If a publisher decides they personally don't want to publish something, fine, it's their call. I have no problem with that. But if someone thinks it's their right to decide for all the others what they should read and what not, then yes, I have a problem with such an attitude. I want to decide for myself what I want to read. Of course there are exceptions (mostly nonfiction - like a book teaching how to make a bomb or how to kill people, such books are directly harmful), but as to the vast majority of subjects, no one should be able to decide for me what's suitable for my reading. One publisher might refuse to publish what another accepts, or the author can self-publish, those are all valid options and perfectly ok. It's not ok to say "I think the subject matter is offensive and therefore no one should ever publish it". It might be offensive to you, but not to many other people. Unless you can prove that reading the book can cause direct harm to others, for example detailed instructions how to make a bomb that can kill people.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion. I don't think censure is ok, except for a very few exceptions.

Re: your statement that I've bolded. I think it is okay to say that. I really don't think that you want to tell people what opinions they can have.

If freedom of expression is meant to allow people to express themselves, then surely they should be allowed to express their condemnatory opinions, too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

If freedom of expression is meant to allow people to express themselves, then surely they should be allowed to express their condemnatory opinions, too.

Do you really see no difference between saying "This book offends me" and "Nobody should be able to read this book"? The first is a condemnatory opinion; the second is an attempt to forcibly impose your moral standards on others.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It certainly is okay. For instance, if someone I respect and whose judgement I trust says they read a book that should never have been published, I might take their word for it and condemn it to my do not read list. Does that make me a Twitter twit?

It is perfectly okay for you to choose not to read it. It is not okay for you to condemn it unread in the hope others will not read it (though you are free to do so). The former does not make you a "twitter twit", as you put it. The latter does.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It certainly is okay. For instance, if someone I respect and whose judgement I trust says they read a book that should never have been published, I might take their word for it and condemn it to my do not read list. Does that make me a Twitter twit?

Nope.

If, however, you take their word and tell everyone else to not read it because reasons just because they don't think it should be published then yes, this is exactly how twitter mobs happen - a bunch of twits outraged at second hand information which may or may not be accurate.

[DiapDealer]

You guys know you have to follow twitter mobsters to ever actually be affected by a "twitter mob", right? There really is an off-switch for just about everything.

Should we condemn condemners of books without ever familiarizing ourselves with the reasons for their condemnation? Or should we simply tune out the noise?

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You guys know you have to follow twitter mobsters to ever actually be affected by a "twitter mob", right? There really is an off-switch for just about everything.

Should we condemn condemners of books without ever familiarizing ourselves with the reasons for their condemnation? Or should we simply tune out the noise?

Fortunately it is true in most instances that we are unaffected. However, the problem with witch hunts, or in this case black witch hunts is that occasionally this type of hysterical campaign succeeds in preventing books from being published or having them withdrawn, which is a concern for us all.

I see little problem with condemning people who leave 1 star reviews condemning a book whilst taking pride in the fact that they have not read it. Anyone reading the article linked to in the OP and the original review is in fact quite well enough informed as to the reasons for the condemnation, such as they are.

Nevertheless, tuning out the noise has much to be said for it where possible. It seems that this particular campaign may well have failed or even backfired, though the jury is probably still out on this.

[DiapDealer]

It is my understanding that this particular book is selling well. So why opt-in to all the irrelevant noise? All it accomplishes is drawing attention to people who want more attention for their "cause."

Twitter "Mobs" only only become such (a mob) because people choose to follow lots of mobsters on Twitter (either because they agree with them, or because they're hoping to see a fight, or both). Turning them off is the best response for those who wish to counter them. Their success (if they ever truly succeed) is directly proportional to their audience size. Drawing more attention to that sort of fringe, tempest-in-in-a-teapot nonsense is counter-productive in my opinion.

So let 'em preach to their choirs. Their kind of choirs typically accomplish the opposite of what they intend anyway. Buzz is buzz--and buzz sells. *shrug*

[HarryT]

As Oscar Wilde said: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about" .

[darryl]

@DiapDealer and HarryT. My fear is that if ignored this sort of behaviour will escalate to the point where it really does have a chilling effect on authors and publishers. Some of the quotes in the original article indicated this is starting to happen as well as giving examples of books having already been affected. It also referred to about 6 books currently under attack for various reasons in what sounds like a very dysfunctional online community. I certainly think it is worthwhile for us to discuss the matter on these forums. Both this taking offence and calling out culture and the ridiculous cult of cultural appropriation represent real concerns. Having said this, you could well be right that the best approach is to ignore, at least in the sense of confining our opposition to these forums and not otherwise engaging with these people, in the hope that the problem will not escalate.