3 ms·

> no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Not in the traditional sense of the

> no one bans books like Tom Sawyer et. al. even though they are inarguably more offensive to minorities than Tom & Jerry. Not in the traditional sense of the word. The strategy used today is more of a soft damnatio memoriae. For example, the estate of Dr.Seuss has decided not to publish or sell certain titles over supposedly racist content. https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-stepdaughter-speaks-out-about-books-removed-from-print/amp https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/books/exclusive-dr-seuss-st... Even the author of Captain Underpants (Dan Pilkey) and his publisher withdrew from sale an entire decade-old issue of a series spinoff due the use of a stock kung-fu master character in a few scenes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpants/captain-underpants-author-pulls-book-due-to-racist-imagery-apologizes-to-asian-readers-idUSKBN2BL2QM https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-race-captain-underpan... The last one is rather surprising because the Captain Underpants series has been one of the most challenged and censored books. In an article penned by the author himself, he had this to say: "To set the record straight, I should point out that my books contain no sex, no profanity, no nudity, no drugs, and no graphic violence (at least nothing you wouldn't see in a 1950's Superman comic book). So what's the big deal? Well, most of it boils down to the fact that not every book is right for every person. There are some adults out there who are not amused by the things that make most children laugh, and so they try to stomp these things out. We've all met people like that, haven't we?" Rather ironic.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
Excellent point. Banning through cancelation. I have “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” by Dr. Suess. It's in bad condition, but I can show my son what the fuss is about. We can talk about it and have a discussion. As I recall, there is only one "offensive" page (displays a "chinaman" in a way that is not politically correct)
BHSPitMonkey 4y ago
Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different things? Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.
- selfhoster11 4y ago
  > Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? New copies must keep being made. Over time, the number of accidentally misplaced or damaged copies will reduce the numbers in circulation. > Are they obligated to continuously [retool and] produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Without question. If you appoint yourself as a gatekeeper of a piece of content, you better stay alert and willing to let people through the gate. Anything else amounts to culture hoarding or vandalism as people are denied the chance to participate in a shared experience. Access to affordable culture (all of it) is a right, not a privilege, especially when it’s so bloody cheap to duplicate. Don’t want the responsibility of granting people access in perpetuity? Let people duplicate the content freely. Pirates will do it without grumbling if you just let them.
- Dracophoenix 4y ago
  > Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Yes there is. And if you read the articles I listed, the motives for the retractions were made quite clear by the respective parties. In both cases, the removal of the work had nothing to do with market saturation. > Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me. I'm not arguing against an author's or publisher's rights to delist or even destroy a work. It's well within their rights their to do so any reason whatsoever. It doesn't take being worked up to make it clear that books are just as susceptible to creator/owner censorship as cartoons are or that authors can be fickle and hypocritical. What I take issue with is the philosophical reasoning behind the retraction.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

Excellent point. Banning through cancelation. I have “And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street” by Dr. Suess. It's in bad condition, but I can show my son what the fuss is about. We can talk about it and have a discussion. As I recall, there is only one "offensive" page (displays a "chinaman" in a way that is not politically correct)

BHSPitMonkey 4y ago

Isn't it possible / even reasonable to assume that every now and again, a publisher will need to re-tool their printing operations to optimize for different things? Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me.

selfhoster11 4y ago
> Could the number of existing copies of those works floating around in the world... maybe just be enough already? New copies must keep being made. Over time, the number of accidentally misplaced or damaged copies will reduce the numbers in circulation. > Are they obligated to continuously [retool and] produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Without question. If you appoint yourself as a gatekeeper of a piece of content, you better stay alert and willing to let people through the gate. Anything else amounts to culture hoarding or vandalism as people are denied the chance to participate in a shared experience. Access to affordable culture (all of it) is a right, not a privilege, especially when it’s so bloody cheap to duplicate. Don’t want the responsibility of granting people access in perpetuity? Let people duplicate the content freely. Pirates will do it without grumbling if you just let them.
Dracophoenix 4y ago
> Surely there is a difference between 'no longer producing new copies of books we've been printing and selling for decades' and 'retracting / censoring / canceling' the work to erase it from existence. Yes there is. And if you read the articles I listed, the motives for the retractions were made quite clear by the respective parties. In both cases, the removal of the work had nothing to do with market saturation. > Are they obligated to continuously produce new copies of each and every previously-sold work in perpetuity? Getting worked up and calling the former the latter seems like an overreaction to me. I'm not arguing against an author's or publisher's rights to delist or even destroy a work. It's well within their rights their to do so any reason whatsoever. It doesn't take being worked up to make it clear that books are just as susceptible to creator/owner censorship as cartoons are or that authors can be fickle and hypocritical. What I take issue with is the philosophical reasoning behind the retraction.