I expected a few “won’t someone please think of the children” comments in this thread. But I have to admit, I was not expecting “won’t someone please think of the secondary market for literature.”
It’s not like there aren’t 50-55 other Dr. Suess books, and thousands of picture books for children still available, that don’t include patently racist caricatures.
I remember Ping - I read that as a small child. Also Tikki Tikki Tembo, which is a little more problematic than Ping (mostly in the characterization of Chinese names) but not as overtly racist as the Seuss books in question.
Yes. Presumably a responsible adult will either decide to not choose THAT book, or will explain to their kid that this picture is inappropriate.
If this gets “Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire” banned, I’m all for it.
Who is buying these books? The few statistics I’ve seen suggest that most books for younger children are not being purchased by the parents, but instead are purchased by libraries, day cares, grandparents and other relatives, reading programs (e.g., Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library), and others who don’t know, can’t know, whether an adult will be available to explain the appropriateness or lack thereof. That means they’re going to purchase books that don’t need explaining. They’re deciding not to choose THAT book for the collections at all.
OK, forum moderator here. And that’s just so off-topic and inappropriate that it’s going to get an official Warning.
Saying the wont be printed or published anymore is kinda a soft ban, you have to admit.
So you would regard any out-of-print book to have been banned? They stop printing lots of books that are now considered to be dated. I’m sure used copies will continue to be available on Amazon and second-hand book sellers. If Amazon refused to sell it, I might consider it banned.
Most of the books that have ever been printed are no longer published; I’ve seen figures that 135 million different titles have been published, of which around 1.5 million are currently in print (those figures are squishy, but probably in the ballpark). That would suggest that 98+% of all titles that ever existed are “banned.”
Well, not if the reason is poor sales, and I did say “soft ban”- no one is gonna be arrested for selling it, the govt is not going door to door ala F451, true. By no means a real ban.
I haven’t seen this movie in a long time so my memory is hazy but does Rooney’s character figure in the plot that much? Can his scenes be cut from the movie without rendering the remainder incoherent?
No, I will not admit that at all. Do you have any clue how many books are out of print? I don’t but it is apparently over 90% and probably a lot higher.
ETA: sorry, slash2k, I see you covered this already.
“Soft ban” is honestly just silly in this case.
One thing I’m seeing forgotten is libraries. Kids can and do pick their own books to read. An adult may not have any input beyond the fact that the book is in the children’s section.
And if we’re talking about keeping the original in the adult section, then I’m fine with that.
Sure, bad expression. “Ban” is clearly a trigger word for many. Let’s not use it then.
But there is a difference between stopping printing of a book because it no longer sells, and stopping everyone from printing it as you feel it is “wrong”. There is still a copyright on those books.
No one gets to print those books now.
No one was “triggered” by it. It just wasn’t an accurate description of what happened.
I did read McElligot’s Pool back when I was 7 and remember liking it. Its premise involves a puddle that’s supposedly connected to the ocean by way of an underground river that allows access for a multitude of weird aquatic species. I can see why Stephen King liked the book as a child since the story has a kid-friendly Lovecraft-lite quality to it. Unfortunately, one of the water critters described is the “Eskimo fish” and that’s enough to get the whole book tossed.
Just for fun, I checked Worldcat. It says If I Ran the Zoo is held by 2,527 libraries around the world. The actual number is certainly higher, as Worldcat doesn’t cover every last library on the planet.
It’s possible that some libraries will withdraw these retired Dr. Seuss books from their collections, but I doubt that many will. Librarians typically resist pressure to withdraw controversial books.
Plenty of books that go out of print for non-ideological reasons are still under copyright too. A publisher won’t necessarily sell the rights to an out-of-print book; they may cease publishing it but still retain the copyright.
So a book going out of print while its former publisher still prevents anyone else from reprinting it is by no means an uncommon occurrence.
If Dr. Seuss was still alive, and said, “I’m embarrassed by a few of these books and would like to stop selling them” would anyone see a problem? If not, why can’t his heirs do the same?
( I don’t know who owns the copyright, I’m just saying "heirs.)