Thank you for the correction. I have a relative who works in the children’s division at Penguin/Random - I’ll ask her if she knows how Dr. Seuss Enterprises is staffed. Either way, it looks like they’re not an independent body unrelated to the publisher.
“Orwellian” would be if eBay is coming to your house and searching it for forbidden books and if they find any they strap a cage of rats to your face until your will breaks and you confess your hatred for Dr. Seuss on TV and then they quietly shoot you in the head a month later. “Orwellian” isn’t when a website decides to stop trafficking in something they think is gross.
No? They don’t vet every word and every illustration in every book and video to make sure that they aren’t racially insensitive. And they shouldn’t. This is being every single bit as bad as the right spun the stopping publishing the book.
I’ve read three of them.
If i ran the zoo wasn’t one of his best, and some of those images appall me. I will not miss it.
To think that i saw it on mulberry street was one of the first doctor Seuss books i read, and I’m rather fond of it. I would be happier if they edited it to remove the offensive pages and continued to publish the rest.
I didn’t read on beyond zebra as a child. I read it as an adult because several of my friends found it inspiring. They said it encouraged them to think outside the box, and not feel restricted by social conventions. I hand-sewed a page in an infant’s book inspired by on beyond zebra as part of a collective baby present for friend. I am very sad this one will be pulled from publication.
Y’know, there’s too many people out there that act as if the books were being confiscated and destroyed, when all that has happened is that the rights-owner has decided on no further current publication of some of their low-selling old books that they feel no longer send well their message. You can still buy/sell and read the ones out there and in 40 years they will go into public domain and anyone will be able to republish.
And those propaganda cartoons? Hell yeah they were racist. That should not offend anyone reading this thread, on whichever side of the argument. One side says “it’s racist and must be denounced” the other can say “it’s racist but there was a context”. ISTM part of the problem is with treating the word “racist” itself as some sort of ultimate undebatable argument-killer.
And I suppose some people do jump into fearing that eventually someone will say, “He did some racist things? Then no one should have anything to do with anything of his!” which is NOT what is happening today. That, I will oppose, when and if that is what is being argued.
You are focusing too narrowly on this particular instance. My reference was to how we’ve had discussions before about people decrying how someone can’t find a work or can’t do a reprint or adaptation of the work because the rights-holder is unwilling to re-release it or because the rights-holder is unreachable (e.g. the rights are tied up in court, or nobody bothered updating who is the current living heir). But yes, the right usually is all for the private property owners to do what they want with their property… until it’s something like this.
The way it works, right now, is the rights-holder decides what can be published/displayed. And if they’d rather not publish/display something they feel is no longer appropriate that is not “censorship”, it’s exercising intellectual property rights.
Yeah, it’s pretty impressive how offended some get over an author’s estate deciding what they want to do with their own intellectual property.
“Never met a good n_____ so why does it matter we hung him and he turned out innocent? We asked the people.”
Selling an Eskimo Joe tee-shirt is hardly in the same league but it’s down the same path.
Or am I clutching my pearls?
Yes, DrDeth has stated in the past that owning slaves wasn’t racist because it was legal at the time. Links can be found in his highly active pit thread.
So…they don’t actively vet things, but they deal with problems if they are brought to their attention. Still not seeing anything wrong here.
Eh, I think the people getting offended over THIS decision are idiots, but people’s decisions in general aren’t above criticism just because they have the undisputed legal right to make them. If they were pulling the Lorax because they thought environmentalism was a Communist plot, I would be first in line to call them a barrel of motherfuckers.
Non-hypothetically, Gail Zappa’s apparent belief that the value of her husband’s unreleased recordings will continue to increase the longer she continues to sit on them is both idiotic and infuriating (although AIUI that was only the main issue for a decade or so after his death, and now another obstacle to the release of this material is that she and her children are all pursuing endless lawsuits against each other).
I did a quick look through the UCSD collection of his political cartoons (there are twenty pages) and found nothing so stereotyped as his depiction of the Japanese or Japanese-Americans.
He caricatured Hitler and Mussolini unfavorably and was down of the America First crowd and Lindbergh, but this is the only one I found depicting the German people – hardly in the same vein as the Japanese, even in the same cartoon.
What does this have to do with the OP?
As long as it isn’t on Ebay, and as long as other booksellers don’t jump on the bannedwagon.
Just me fighting ignorance. “Ban” has a meaning to me, especially with books - someone with power is trying to keep me away from something that is not theirs. Good: the author is pulling a book from publication. Iffy: the library is pulling the book off of the shelves. Bad: The Governor (or the Mayor or the President or The Concerned Citizens Brigade…) tells the library that they must pull the book off of the shelf.
Heck, “Random House decides to stop publishing a book” is absolutely fine. I might disagree if they are bowing to public pressure on a questionable title, but it is within their rights. Congress telling Random House - even Congress pressuring Random House to stop publishing a book is wrong.
This is absolutely the owner of the creative rights saying that they’re pulling it. Their art, their rights. There’s plenty of books being banned that we should be upset about; this is not one of them.
My understanding (which may be incorrect) is that his heirs control this. Even if they didn’t, they are the owners of the copyright, and it is theirs to do with as they wish.
Sure, Ok, but in recent times where has a American government agency banned the sale of a book? (Other than some sorts of porn)
It has everything to do with your argument regarding the OP and I would respectfully appreciate your response.
True. And it’s not like we see much #WeWantFrankNow public opinion activity. I suppose that when it is cast as a “values” decision (perceived as political) vs. a purely business/monetary one it makes people a bit more sensitive and more willing to claim that some fundamental principle is at stake.
I suppose part of what’s up is the presumption on the part of some that this thing with the books cannot have been a sincere initiative and something else must be afoot.
You are welcome to start another thread on this.
I dont want this thread (too late! 
) to be all about my personal views on racism vs presentism.
I do watch Fox sometimes, and they mentioned that ebay has no trouble selling mein kampf or the works of farrakhan. I think they’re overreacting, but I also think no books should be kept from those who want to read them.
You can buy offensive material on eBay. It’s just that eBay virtue signals by going along with banning whatever the targeted outrageous material of the day is. They and many other large corporations and academic institutions are cowardly.