Banning books (split off from the depicting-rape thread, moved from Novels)

[euclid]

The posters in this thread are all amazing. Apparently, art is everything. If it helps to tell the story, then write it down, whatever it is.

Well I disagree with this. For me, there is far too much graphic nastiness in the world of fiction. Even reading the newspapers turns my stomach these days. In fact, I've stopped buying them for that reason. I question the value of stories about serial killers who dream up ingenious and imaginative ways of dispatching their victims (like Seven). I've posted about this before in another thread, where I said that I would ban books like that. Rape is a vile crime, probably worse in ways than murder, and I would get nothing good or valuable from reading about it, graphic or not, implied or summarized.

Call me old fashioned.

[scarletpeaches]

Originally Posted by euclid

The posters in this thread are all amazing. Apparently, art is everything. If it helps to tell the story, then write it down, whatever it is.

Well I disagree with this. For me, there is far too much graphic nastiness in the world of fiction. Even reading the newspapers turns my stomach these days. In fact, I've stopped buying them for that reason. I question the value of stories about serial killers who dream up ingenious and imaginative ways of dispatching their victims (like Seven). I've posted about this before in another thread, where I said that I would ban books like that. Rape is a vile crime, probably worse in ways than murder, and I would get nothing good or valuable from reading about it, graphic or not, implied or summarized.

Call me old fashioned.

This is the most worrying part of your post and I am insanely glad you are not in a position to carry this out.

[CheshireCat]

Originally Posted by scarletpeaches

This is the most worrying part of your post and I am insanely glad you are not in a position to carry this out.

I so agree.

[ChristineR]

Look, no mater what you write...the majority of people don't read books like that. Even Harry Potter only has sales of 400 million, and that's including all seven books. Some of us choose to read (and write) about people who behave in extreme ways, because that's a part of life. Have you never wondered why a person might do something like that? Have you never known a person who was victimized and wondered if you could have given her advice that might have gotten her out of her quandary in advance? Have you never wondered what you might do if face to face with a rapist? What might go through your head at the moment?

Fiction is built on conflict, and conflict means suffering. Not every book has to have every variety of suffering, but to arbitrarily exclude something that has caused so much suffering to so many people--what a loss. What a huge part of human experience to erase from our fiction. How could you possibly write truthfully about war, or prisons, or poverty, or abortion, or even growing up, without addressing rape?

If you don't want to read about it, fine--there are other books out there for you. But really, to ban rape from fiction? Why not ban war, and murder, and blackmail, and rent gouging? Why single out something that so many of us (and that includes the rape victims among us) want to read about?

Would you ban the Bible? And Tess of the D'Ubervilles? How about The Rape of Lucrece and Measure for Measure? How about War and Peace? Sorry, but I'm not with you on this one.

[euclid]

Originally Posted by ChristineR

If you don't want to read about it, fine--there are other books out there for you. But really, to ban rape from fiction? Why not ban war, and murder, and blackmail, and rent gouging? Why single out something that so many of us (and that includes the rape victims among us) want to read about?

I've cut a single paragraph from your post, Christine, just to say that I never said books about rape should be banned. I said I didn't want to read them. The books that I was objecting to in my original post were those (like Seven) that dream up elaborate and imaginative and gory ways for serial killers to go about their business. There's enough of that going on in real life.

[maestrowork]

Throughout history we've had books and stories about some of the worst things about the human condition: rape, murder, torture, child abuse, sex crimes, abuse, genocide, dictatorship, etc. etc. That's part of the truth of being humans.

If people stop writing books with topics that make others uncomfortable, or about the most heinous acts, then soon we'll be left with generic books that may not speak the truth about the human conditions. Surely, we're free to choose to read, or not read, anything we want, but to advocate banning such books or forbidding others to write or read them? Please.

[virtue_summer]

Originally Posted by euclid

The posters in this thread are all amazing. Apparently, art is everything. If it helps to tell the story, then write it down, whatever it is.

Well I disagree with this. For me, there is far too much graphic nastiness in the world of fiction. Even reading the newspapers turns my stomach these days. In fact, I've stopped buying them for that reason. I question the value of stories about serial killers who dream up ingenious and imaginative ways of dispatching their victims (like Seven). I've posted about this before in another thread, where I said that I would ban books like that. Rape is a vile crime, probably worse in ways than murder, and I would get nothing good or valuable from reading about it, graphic or not, implied or summarized.

Call me old fashioned.

Here's the thing: It's one thing to say you have your own preferences in reading material, but to suggest banning books that aren't to your liking is ridiculous. And I have to say that in my humble opinion the reasoning doesn't make sense. Not writing about violence doesn't make it go away. Not reading about it doesn't make it go away. It simply turns a blind eye, pretending it doesn't happen. That in turn makes it easier for it to go unchecked. One reason that writers may choose to write about such things is in an effort to keep it from being ignored because ignorance tends to do much more harm than good. In any case writers have different reasons for writing and readers for reading. Why would you ban books just because the authors and readers of those books are looking for something different from them than you are?

[Kris]

Yeah...I'm not especially drawn to violent subject matter for its own sake, but I have no interest in banning books. Actually that's an understatement...I'm strongly opposed to banning books.

[john barnes on toast]

Originally Posted by euclid

Call me old fashioned.

I'd call you significantly worse if I felt this was an appropriate place.

Are you really serious that you'd ban books that were contrary to your personal taste?

That is a truly, truly dreadful thing for anyone to say. To come from someone who professes to be a writer, it beggars belief.

[KTC]

Originally Posted by john barnes on toast

I'd call you significantly worse if I felt this was an appropriate place.

Are you really serious that you'd ban books that were contrary to your personal taste?

That is a truly, truly dreadful thing for anyone to say. To come from someone who professes to be a writer, it beggars belief.

I'm just going to agree with this comment. I don't like all the shit that happens in every book I read...but I would be loathe to step on a writer's right to write it. I vote NEVER ban books. Yes...this means that books with topics I despise will not be banned. But there is no safe line. Banning books is wrong. Period.

[Shweta]

I'm going to leave this open for now, but if it continues as a pile-on as opposed to a discussion, it'll probably get closed or moved to TIO

Here's a question on the one side: is it really not possible to get good things out of books about bad things? I was a bullied kid, and I got a lot out of reading a book where the protagonist was pretty mercilessly bullied, and had to deal with that (badly at first, then not as badly). There was a kid on the news who killed himself over bullying a month or so ago. Could a book like that have saved him?

Could a book like Laurie Halse Andersen's Speak, about a girl reacting to having being raped, and dealing with the consequences, help another kid who was? I'd say maybe. I'd have a very hard time saying that a subject should be out of bounds, and in that I agree with a lot of other posters.

But.
Might a treatment be out of bounds? What if a book glorifies rape, or eugenics, or something else vile, and is a mouthpiece for said position? I personally still wouldn't be for banning it -- I'd be for making sure everyone knew exactly what it was and what it meant about the author, but not for banning it.

But what about the lying "memoirs" that claim to speak for a group and screw them over for profit? Like Frey's, or that woman who pretended to speak for a ghetto community of color that she actually had no interaction with? See there I start to get more uneasy.

Thoughts?

[icerose]

Originally Posted by Shweta

I'm going to leave this open for now, but if it continues as a pile-on as opposed to a discussion, it'll probably get closed or moved to TIO

Here's a question on the one side: is it really not possible to get good things out of books about bad things? I was a bullied kid, and I got a lot out of reading a book where the protagonist was pretty mercilessly bullied, and had to deal with that (badly at first, then not as badly). There was a kid on the news who killed himself over bullying a month or so ago. Could a book like that have saved him?

Could a book like Laurie Halse Andersen's Speak, about a girl reacting to having being raped, and dealing with the consequences, help another kid who was? I'd say maybe. I'd have a very hard time saying that a subject should be out of bounds, and in that I agree with a lot of other posters.

But.
Might a treatment be out of bounds? What if a book glorifies rape, or eugenics, or something else vile, and is a mouthpiece for said position? I personally still wouldn't be for banning it -- I'd be for making sure everyone knew exactly what it was and what it meant about the author, but not for banning it.

But what about the lying "memoirs" that claim to speak for a group and screw them over for profit? Like Frey's, or that woman who pretended to speak for a ghetto community of color that she actually had no interaction with? See there I start to get more uneasy.

Thoughts?

Those are some really good questions.

I do think seeing people in bad situations as long as they aren't just in bad situations forever can perhaps help people identify with and perhaps turn their own lives away. I'm not a personal fan of tragedy and I'm always left with "What's the point?"

As for books that glorify bad things, that's a really tough call, I can always hope that they will find a very limited audience and libraries aren't required to stock such books. There have been many things pulled over racism, Song of the South pops into mind.

As for outright lies, well they are lies and are not truth and should be held responsible. If they want to say "Fictional Memoir" then by all means, release it. But don't pretend it's fact when it's really fiction. As long as things are catagorized and books that are more awful get some sort of red sticker with an explanation I don't see why we would need to impliment bans on books. People are smart, if they don't want to read it, they won't and whichever author wrote it will probably fade either into obscurity or infamy.

[brainstorm77]

I think we all can make the choice to not read certain books. If rape was a part of the storyline then yes I could deal with it.
Just look at violence in movies, most watch a slasher movie and think nothing of it. So what's the difference then it being written in a work of fiction?
I do shy away from true crime, serial killer etc simply because I do not want to know the gruesome details about something that really happened. But that's just me.

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by euclid

I've posted about this before in another thread, where I said that I would ban books like that. Rape is a vile crime, probably worse in ways than murder, and I would get nothing good or valuable from reading about it, graphic or not, implied or summarized.

I not only disagree with the sentiment of banning the books, I go so far as to take the opposite side of the spectrum. I think such things (at least the ones grounded in reality) should be required reading. Turning away doesn't make the problem go away. It has to be dealt with.

[scarletpeaches]

No book should be banned. EVER. Don't make me go all Godwin on this thread.

If a book is 'evil' - not that I believe books can be inherently so - then it should be self-evident. You don't prove something to be evil by sweeping it under the carpet. You shove it into the light of day, say, "Look at this!" and let its true nature be known.

Censorship is the only true evil here. It boggles my mind anyone, let alone a writer, would advocate banning any book.

[Shweta]

Originally Posted by scarletpeaches

No book should be banned. EVER. Don't make me go all Godwin on this thread.

How 'bout a plagiarized book put out by a publisher shady enough not to withdraw it? Chances are bookstores won't carry it, but what if they did?

I do think there is a line, implicit or not, about what we think it's acceptable to have on the shelves. And partly I supect we're assuming that anything really criminally nasty won't get on the shelves in the first place.

And -- I'd much rather have that be the case than any sort of book banning; but I don't think it's quite as simple a situation as censorship bad -- arguably refusing to publish or carry certain things is itself a quiet form of censorship. Societies do censor the things they find despicable.

So I guess there ends up being two questions:
1) Is regulation ever a good thing? (I'd say no cause the wrong things get regulated, and because it's impossible anyway)
2) Are there (potential) books that should not exist, that really are so destructive that we think they shouldn't be available anywhere? (And I'm less certain on this subject, because how do we measure harm done against the harm done to a society by restrictions?).

[Cyia]

Originally Posted by Shweta

How 'bout a plagiarized book put out by a publisher shady enough not to withdraw it? Chances are bookstores won't carry it, but what if they did?

There, fixed it

No SUBJECT should be banned. EVER. Don't make me go all Godwin on this thread.

[scarletpeaches]

Originally Posted by Shweta

How 'bout a plagiarized book put out by a publisher shady enough not to withdraw it? Chances are bookstores won't carry it, but what if they did?

I do think there is a line, implicit or not, about what we think it's acceptable to have on the shelves. And partly I supect we're assuming that anything really criminally nasty won't get on the shelves in the first place.

And -- I'd much rather have that be the case than any sort of book banning; but I don't think it's quite as simple a situation as censorship bad -- arguably refusing to publish or carry certain things is itself a quiet form of censorship. Societies do censor the things they find despicable.

So I guess there ends up being two questions:
1) Is regulation ever a good thing? (I'd say no cause the wrong things get regulated, and because it's impossible anyway)
2) Are there (potential) books that should not exist, that really are so destructive that we think they shouldn't be available anywhere? (And I'm less certain on this subject, because how do we measure harm done against the harm done to a society by restrictions?).

I don't think plagiarism is the topic here. In such an instance you wouldn't be banning the book - you'd be publishing it under the true author's name, and their name only.

As Cyia said - she fixed it for me.

So regulation, yes. Any book should be published - with the true author's name on the cover. "Own your words," as Mac often (rightly) says. Even when it comes to pen names, the true author is usually easily identifiable so I wouldn't have a problem with that.

Second question, are there any books so destructive that they shouldn't be allowed to exist? No. Because I can bet curiosity about same would mean the subject matter would spring up elsewhere. You ban something, you make it intriguing.

[colealpaugh]

Originally Posted by scarletpeaches

Second question, are there any books so destructive that they shouldn't be allowed to exist? No. Because I can bet curiosity about same would mean the subject matter would spring up elsewhere. You ban something, you make it intriguing.

There's a certain nasty book banned in Germany. And it's always a heated discussion.

Eh, and I admit I built a few bombs when I first read Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book". But that was just me.

[Kris]

Originally Posted by Shweta

How 'bout a plagiarized book put out by a publisher shady enough not to withdraw it? Chances are bookstores won't carry it, but what if they did?

I do think there is a line, implicit or not, about what we think it's acceptable to have on the shelves. And partly I supect we're assuming that anything really criminally nasty won't get on the shelves in the first place.

And -- I'd much rather have that be the case than any sort of book banning; but I don't think it's quite as simple a situation as censorship bad -- arguably refusing to publish or carry certain things is itself a quiet form of censorship. Societies do censor the things they find despicable.

So I guess there ends up being two questions:
1) Is regulation ever a good thing? (I'd say no cause the wrong things get regulated, and because it's impossible anyway)
2) Are there (potential) books that should not exist, that really are so destructive that we think they shouldn't be available anywhere? (And I'm less certain on this subject, because how do we measure harm done against the harm done to a society by restrictions?).

But there's no reason to ban a plagiarized book, because they're never any good, and no one can make money from them.

Regulation is not the same as censorship. Editorial decisions are not the same as censorship! Censorship is when the government steps in and bans dangerous ideas.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

Originally Posted by Shweta

So I guess there ends up being two questions:
1) Is regulation ever a good thing? (I'd say no cause the wrong things get regulated, and because it's impossible anyway)
2) Are there (potential) books that should not exist, that really are so destructive that we think they shouldn't be available anywhere? (And I'm less certain on this subject, because how do we measure harm done against the harm done to a society by restrictions?).

And my answers:
1) No.

2) No.

Please note that these one-word answers are complete in and of themselves. They brook no further questioning.

[Medievalist]

Originally Posted by Shweta

How 'bout a plagiarized book put out by a publisher shady enough not to withdraw it? Chances are bookstores won't carry it, but what if they did?

Banning, unlike boycotting, implies an official legal action. Lady Chatterly's Lover was banned for years; you couldn't buy a copy or bring one into the country. There's a fairly long list of banned works even now, mostly child porn.

I support the rights of stores and libraries and adults to make their own decisions about what books to omit in terms of their own collections.

I also support the rights of readers to importune those groups to NOT omit those books.

[neener]

Originally Posted by Medievalist

Banning, unlike boycotting, implies an official legal action. Lady Chatterly's Lover was banned for years; you couldn't buy a copy or bring one into the country. There's a fairly long list of banned works even now, mostly child porn.

I support the rights of stores and libraries and adults to make their own decisions about what books to omit in terms of their own collections.

I also support the rights of readers to importune those groups to NOT omit those books.

Absolutely.

Sort of reminds me a little of the fanfic discussion about SMeyer's crazy fan. Clearly, some works infringe on copyright and are "banned" because of that infringement. Just a thought...

[SilverPhoenix]

I don't think books should ever be banned. It is an individual's decision whether or not to read a book. The government should not be making the decision for us.

Violence and rape and porn on TV also tend to be much worse than reading it in a book, and it is easy for children to end up seeing these things on the TV too...it's a much worse problem but you don't see anyone banning those kinds of programs.

[naimas]

Someone should write a book about an author who dies and their afterlife is to spend eternity in the "world" he or she created. For some this would be rather hellish indeed.


I am against banning books. Period. But I am for free speech that says that books should be banned. And I am for free speech that says that banning books is wrong. And I am REALLY for free speech that says that right now a beer would be great!