3 ms·
Is there another phrasing you'd recommend?
by DoofusOfDeath 6y ago
Is there another phrasing you'd recommend?
- pantaloony 6y agoI don't have a gripe with the term per se but in this case omitting who did it plainly renders the headline clickbait. If one tiny bit of info added to a headline would lose you most of your clicks, you're being deceptive to gain clicks. In this case the info is that the Nazis banned the book, because no one at all familiar with their book-banning criteria would find it surprising that math books were among the ones they banned, and so would shrug and move on without clicking. The implication of the headline is that the banning is novel or surprising or perhaps especially (and most provocatively) due to its content, but it's not.
- kergonath 6y agoAny phrasing that includes some context: where, when, and by whom. How significant a ban is very much depends on this. I have no interest in reading an article about a book banned in Saudi Arabia, for example. Nazi Germany is not too far in the “countries in which a book being banned is utterly unsurprising” list.
- tgb 6y agoExactly. And a book shouldn't be listed as a "banned book" because one overly-cautious librarian decided they shouldn't have it in a school. You wouldn't call something "illegal" if it were illegal just in one country for a brief period of time. And 'banned' is used as a badge of honor - in this case it really has nothing to do with the book content either.