True or False , Banning A Book Makes it More Likely to be Read

[Valtharius]

The economist in me wishes to answer: it depends on how costly disobedience is.

 

[hitmouse]

Otherwise this topic will be like others I have seen here at Chrons where there is a lot of discussion, some of it good and some of it not, but not much light is shed.

You can tell the discussion has reached the tipping point when someone recommends reading Kane the Mystic Swordsman.

 

[Extollager]

Did I miss something, or has "banned" not been defined?

The idea seems to be that a book is prohibited, that is, some agency prohibits an existing book from being available to and read by some people. But could someone clarify that?

Otherwise this topic will be like others I have seen here at Chrons where there is a lot of discussion, some of it good and some of it not, but not much light is shed.

If I may expand on my earlier comment:

Think about it. If the book really is banned, then of course that banning will not increase its readership. It's banned! If "banned" doesn't = "you can't get it," then what does "banned" mean?

People talk about Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was indeed banned for a while. After it was no longer banned, a lot of people bought copies, from motives of curiosity, desire to keep up with the social buzz, and desire to be titillated. But it was not then a banned book.

 

[BAYLOR]

I wouldn't read a book because it was banned, but I'd imagine that a subset of badboy readers would.

In the past books got banned if they offended the sensibilities of the Culture mavens . Theses curtail elevates believed that their word against the offending book or publican would consigned it to oblivion . Musch just of the time , quite the opposite happened . Put the book on the no no list made people want to read it out curiosity and rebellion. At least, this is my take on it.

 

[tobl]

A synopsis of Naked Lunch, though?

Nightmarish and fiercely funny, William Burroughs' virtuoso, taboo-breaking masterpiece Naked Lunch follows Bill Lee through Interzone: a surreal, orgiastic wasteland of drugs, depravity, political plots, paranoia, sadistic medical experiments and endless, gnawing addiction. One of the most shocking novels ever written, Naked Lunch is a cultural landmark,

does he mean las vegas? or dc?

 

[tinkerdan]

Think about it. If the book really is banned, then of course that banning will not increase its readership. It's banned! If "banned" doesn't = "you can't get it," then what does "banned" mean?

In some instances the banned books are a localized phenomenon so other places might still have the book and hearing about a ban on the book might spark some interest in finding out why. Each of the states in the US might have different agenda and one state might ban a book for some ridiculous reason while others don't even give it a thought.(I'm not sure this happens much anymore; however, it has in the past.)

Just took a look:

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

so yea it still happens.

 

[hitmouse]

If I may expand on my earlier comment:

Think about it. If the book really is banned, then of course that banning will not increase its readership. It's banned! If "banned" doesn't = "you can't get it," then what does "banned" mean?

People talk about Lady Chatterley's Lover. It was indeed banned for a while. After it was no longer banned, a lot of people bought copies, from motives of curiosity, desire to keep up with the social buzz, and desire to be titillated. But it was not then a banned book.

LCL is a case in point. Its banning in the UK was famous, the author was well-known, it was a media event, and the book , in English, could be purchased in Paris if anyone was interested enough to take a relatively short trip. So the banning did not really achieve anything. It has done rather well in the decades since the ban ended, and is generally felt to have some literary merit rather than simply being smut.

 

[tobl]

In some instances the banned books are a localized phenomenon so other places might still have the book and hearing about a ban on the book might spark some interest in finding out why. Each of the states in the US might have different agenda and one state might ban a book for some ridiculous reason while others don't even give it a thought.(I'm not sure this happens much anymore; however, it has in the past.)

Just took a look:

Top 10 Most Challenged Books of 2023

Every year, the American Library Association compiles a list of the Top 10 Most Frequently Challenged Books based on reports from the field and media coverage.

www.ala.org

so yea it still happens.

1. Harry Potter series by J. K. Rowling
   Reasons: banned and forbidden from discussion for referring to magic and witchcraft, for containing actual curses and spells, and for characters that use “nefarious means” to attain goal.

why didn't anyone told me that there are actual curses and spell there? come on, i was looking for them everywhere... i wonder if there's a spell to make brains grow.... obviously it would be a best seller.
Characters that use nefarious means.... every single book i've ever read. and stories in newspapers... and news... and....

 

[Astro Pen]

I feel that banning a book makes it less likely to be read numerically, but more likely to be read by those for whom it is relevant.
If your desire to distribute a radical viewpoint/ information exceeds your desire for sales then banning could be an aspiration.

Another question this raises, (I haven't read the whole thread), is are there ever legitimate grounds for banning? (As opposed to "that doesn't reflect my politics", which I wouldn't say is valid). Say, hypothetically, "The Little Book of Nuclear Go Codes" or "How to poison your manager's coffee and get his job."

 

[tobl]

I feel that banning a book makes it less likely to be read numerically, but more likely to be read by those for whom it is relevant.
If your desire to distribute a radical viewpoint/ information exceeds your desire for sales then banning could be an aspiration.

Another question this raises, (I haven't read the whole thread), is are there ever legitimate grounds for banning? (As opposed to "that doesn't reflect my politics", which I wouldn't say is valid). Say, hypothetically, "The Little Book of Nuclear Go Codes" or "How to poison your manager's coffee and get his job."

actuallu yes.i believe there's was a book in the usa that described in detail how to committ a crime and get away with it. also there's a book i read which is literally a guide to suicide, describing incluselivelyy poisons and how to get them... so this 2 books i would actually bann them

 

[BAYLOR]

Nevermind

 

[BAYLOR]

The Spycatcher, by Peter Wright, comes to mind, it officially banned across the UK, however I bought a copy somewhere in Dorset. Read it, and thought it was fiction.

I had a copy of that book , it was a good read .

 

[JunkMonkey]

People have been prosecuted (successfully) for owning copies of The Anarchists' Cookbook in the UK without it, as far as I know, ever having been 'banned' here.

There are things that are (rightly in my opinion) banned in the UK. Child and animal pornography for example. I'm not sure banning them has made it more likely to be accessed. Quite the opposite in fact.

 

[Ray Zdybrow]

Nightmarish and fiercely funny, William Burroughs' virtuoso, taboo-breaking masterpiece Naked Lunch follows Bill Lee through Interzone: a surreal, orgiastic wasteland of drugs, depravity, political plots, paranoia, sadistic medical experiments and endless, gnawing addiction. One of the most shocking novels ever written, Naked Lunch is a cultural landmark,

does he mean las vegas? or dc?

More of a blurb than a synopsis, IMO!