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

[DiapDealer]

It can only escalate if you help them by spreading their message. Otherwise they're just a noisy (and small) internet clique. Most of the people who bought/read the book did so with absolutely no knowledge that there WAS a stink (and most of the rest bought it because of the stink).The only way they can have any real affect on publishers/authors is if the publishers/authors make the mistake of validating the noisy cliques by engaging them directly.

If it's not lessons on how to perform already illegal activities, publishers aren't going to hesitate to publish novels with "hot-button" content (let alone hot-button subtext). Even if a few genre bloggers blow up a few peoples' Twitter feeds in protest about it.

The noise IS the goal. So let them make the noise. They'll move on to the next existential crisis when they figure out the Bear isn't going to react to the Poke.

[MikeB1972]

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.

Right up until they get you fired right?

Normally I'd agree with you but the permanently outraged end of society occasionally brings the lynch mob out of the monitor and into real life.

[HarryT]

Indeed.

A few years ago the good citizens of my home town were denied the feast of the intellect that is "Jerry Springer: The Opera". A small group of Christian zealots protested outside the theatre where it was due to be staged, and the theatre cancelled it.

I've not the slightest objection to anyone deciding not to see such a thing themselves. I have a big problem with them forcing their "morality" on everyone else.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Indeed.

A few years ago the good citizens of my home town were denied the feast of the intellect that is "Jerry Springer: The Opera". A small group of Christian zealots protested outside the theatre where it was due to be staged, and the theatre cancelled it.

I've not the slightest objection to anyone deciding not to see such a thing themselves. I have a big problem with them forcing their "morality" on everyone else.

Same thing happened in about 1978 here. KISS got cancelled due to zealots.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Do you really see no difference between saying, "This book should never have been published," and, "Nobody should be able to read this book?" The first wishes the book wasn't available to read and the second says people shouldn't be allowed to read it.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by darryl

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.

Why shouldn't I give others the benefit of the wisdom of my respected and trusted source? Because you say so? Why should I value your opinion over theirs?

It's fine to have opinions and principles, as long as they're not blindly condemnatory of those of others. If you only assume you know why someone is saying something, then that's no better than condemning a book without reading it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Do you really see no difference between saying, "This book should never have been published," and, "Nobody should be able to read this book?" The first wishes the book wasn't available to read and the second says people shouldn't be allowed to read it.

I'm afraid I see no difference whatsoever. If the book is not available to read, then nobody can read it.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

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.

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."

[DiapDealer]

Shows/concerts cancelled? Without a Twitter mob?! Inconceivable!

It's much easier for protestors to have success stopping/preventing specific events. That event is going to happen in one specified place. All resistance can be focused on (or at) that venue to make fighting the pressure more trouble than it's worth.

A book makes its appearance simultaneously at thousands (or millions if you count ebook readers purchasing books from the comfort of their own recliner) of locations at once. Protesters pitching a fit in one corner of social media don't have a snowball's chance of stopping a book that's already on a publisher's release calendar--and if advanced copies are already circulating. There's no target or venue where protest can be adequately focused. The book release will come and go and most fans/consumers will never even be aware there was ever a problem.

One has to seek out this kind of pre-book-release news to even know it's going on. And most people are already well-aware that online book reviews need to be passed through a personal relevance filter of some kind anyway.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

Do you really see no difference between saying, "This book should never have been published," and, "Nobody should be able to read this book?" The first wishes the book wasn't available to read and the second says people shouldn't be allowed to read it.

What exactly is the difference?
I don't see one. Just different wording.
Please tell me how should have never been published so no one could read it is any different from no one should read this book.
Looks like the same idea.
I am over 18. So I have a question.
Why should someone choose what I read?
Maybe I possibly find what the condemner reads offensive. What you read or don't read does not in any way affect my life. Now if one tells me I should only read what they read, that affects my life and personally what I choose to read is my business only not anyone else's.


To those that think they can tell people not to do something, how would you feel if you were told what you couldn't do?

See my thinking is you want to dictate to me, then that gives me the right to dictate to you.

[hildea]

Some clarifications to my last post:

• The slavery novel in my example was about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. If it had taken place in ancient Rome or among the Dohtrakis, my opinion would have been different.
• I don't wish that publishing these novels were illegal, and I don't wish that they had been stopped from publication because of "twitter mobs" (also known as "grassroot movements"). I wish that the author, agent, and the editor who picked up this manuscript from the slush pile -- everybody who decided that "yes, this concept is worthy of my time and creativity" had had the wits and moral sense to see that these ideas are harmful, and had chosen some other concept instead.
• 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.

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?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by hildea

Some clarifications to my last post:

• The slavery novel in my example was about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. If it had taken place in ancient Rome or among the Dohtrakis, my opinion would have been different.
• I don't wish that publishing these novels were illegal, and I don't wish that they had been stopped from publication because of "twitter mobs" (also known as "grassroot movements"). I wish that the author, agent, and the editor who picked up this manuscript from the slush pile -- everybody who decided that "yes, this concept is worthy of my time and creativity" had had the wits and moral sense to see that these ideas are harmful, and had chosen some other concept instead.
• 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.

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?

Ok on your first exmple: would you bat an eye if it was just 2 random people in love that couldn't be together because of whatever reason?
What may I ask is the difference between 2 real people and 2 fictional characters based on the same premise? Or even ancient times?
How is slavery any different despite the times?

As to the romantizing: well Sally and Thomas were lovers. I think they would have been anyway. Where I would have a problem is where they idolize the oppressors.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

Some clarifications to my last post:
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?

No. But most things in fiction have power to hurt someone or other. Description of rape could hurt any rape victim, description of torture could hurt any person who has been tortured, description of war could hurt anyone who has experienced war firsthand. Trivial or amusing depiction of a religion could hurt any person of that religion, and so on and so forth. In short, almost nothing would get written. People who are afraid they would be hurt by a book are perfectly free not to read said book.

And why is trivializing the slavery in the US worse than trivializing the slavery in Ancient Rome or in a fantasy world? Slavery in real life is awful and must be condemned, I don't think any sane person would doubt that. But describing slavery in fiction? I don't think so.

[hildea]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Ok on your first exmple: would you bat an eye if it was just 2 random people in love that couldn't be together because of whatever reason?
What may I ask is the difference between 2 real people and 2 fictional characters based on the same premise? Or even ancient times?
How is slavery any different despite the times?

The difference is that Dothraki supremacists don't walk in our streets, chanting "Hail Khal Drogo". The difference is that descendants of Roman slaves aren't more likely to be shot by the police, or less likely to get jobs, than descendants of Roman slave owners.

As to the romantizing: well Sally and Thomas were lovers. I think they would have been anyway. Where I would have a problem is where they idolize the oppressors.

Yep, that is the problem. A novel which describes a sexual relationship between a grown slave owner and a slave child as a consensual romance, which imagines that she could have said "No", does idolize the oppressors.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by hildea

Yep, that is the problem. A novel which describes a sexual relationship between a grown slave owner and a slave child as a consensual romance, which imagines that she could have said "No", does idolize the oppressors.

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.