# Why do we need a book like "Hogg"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 16, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261 "2010-02-16T23:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/41 "2010-02-17T00:59:19Z")
If you don’t like a book, don’t read it. But you don’t have the right to say that because you don’t like a book, nobody can read it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/42 "2010-02-17T01:00:50Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > Sure, I would let you do that. > I guess I am looking more to understand the willingness to say that we need the most foul, dispicable ideas set down on paper. > Ok, no one has to read them. > I would like to think we could focus on what is good and healthy. If I can do that, in other countries I can ban the bible. (And I’d bet money it’s already been done.) Do you like _that_ idea? Serioulsy, book-banning is an idea built on the idea that you’ll always be on top of the heap everywhere, and that things will never ever change. It’s a very precarious condition- suppose for a moment, just a moment, that democrats took the house, the senate, _and_ the presidency all at the same time. (Unlikely, I know.) At that point they _could_ try and ban all republican documentation and materials, give or take that pesky amendment. Would that be a good thing, objectively speaking? Lest you think this is fantastic, they’d _hardly_ be the first government to ban a book. ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/43 "2010-02-17T01:05:39Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > But alot of people like scripture. They are not in the same class as Hogg. > You would have a real problem convincing a majority that they are valueless. > > How many like that book we are talking about, and should a few demented souls have a say? Look, the reason you’re advocating banning this book (and I’m assuming here, feel free to correct me) is exactly **not** that the book is valueless - you don’t believe that; it’s because **you think the book promotes or describes the _wrong_ values**. A valueless book would be of no concern to you, like the above mentioned book filled with only the letter A. And there _is_ a problem with that kind of argument. Lots of people - especially in the US - would probably think that any book promoting communism is promoting the wrong values; would you support the banning of **Das Kapital**? I’ve not read it, but from the bits I’ve read by Marx, I’d say he makes some interesting and worthwhile insights. In Germany, **Mein Kampf** is banned; I think Hitler was a nutcase, but I think it’s vital that people can read that book for themselves, if and when they choose. I chose political books as an example here, but I suspect your outrage is more to do with the sexual aspects of the book. At least, you’re not crying out for the banning of books describing child murder, or the slaughter of animals for food. Why not? ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/44 "2010-02-17T01:06:08Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you don’t like a book, don’t read it. > > But you don’t have the right to say that because you don’t like a book, nobody can read it. Agreed. Is there any subject matter for a book that you would say" That would be better off not published"? Is there nothing that we as humans can agree to say NO to? ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/45 "2010-02-17T01:11:43Z")
FWIW I just scanned the bookshelf to my right and picked out _Stars in my pocket like grains of sand_. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/46 "2010-02-17T01:12:40Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > Agreed. > Is there any subject matter for a book that you would say" That would be better off not published"? > Is there nothing that we as humans can agree to say NO to? I don’t really care what you say, and you shouldn’t care what I say. I could do quite well without Dan Brown, Ayn Rand, or any romance novel. Most people probably could have done quite well without any book in my sf collection. For a book to be published, some person somewhere said that it is better for it to be published. If the book sells, some people somewhere thought it worth plunking down money for. Why do you consider yourself smarter than them? ---
**Author:** ![Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8edcca/32.png) [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superfluous_Parentheses)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/47 "2010-02-17T01:13:44Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > Agreed. > Is there any subject matter for a book that you would say" That would be better off not published"? > Is there nothing that we as humans can agree to say NO to? Don’t be so dramatic. The world didn’t end when the movie SAW was released. Or when de Sade published his books 250 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/48 "2010-02-17T01:18:02Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > If that’s your criteria, I will submit American Idols and all its international variants. And whatever On Ice. > > I’ll reduce it to this: how would the world be better off without that book? The time spent on it could be better spent. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/49 "2010-02-17T01:19:42Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > Is there any subject matter for a book that you would say" That would be better off not published"? There are a zillion books that I think would be better off not published, including whatever the latest _Chicken Soup for the Soul_ schmaltzfest is, and possibly including _Hogg_ as well (can’t be sure because I haven’t read it\*). The question here is not whether it would be better for any particular book not to be published, but whether it would be better for us to **forbid** the publication of any particular book. Forbidding the publication of a book has so many bad precedents and is so liable to pernicious abuse that I am very, very unwilling to consider it unless the reason for it is absolutely compelling. I don’t consider distaste and revulsion, however natural and justified, for slimy skeevy squicky gross topics to be a compelling reason for censorship. \*Yes, I can be sure that I think the latest _Chicken Soup_ book would be better off not published, whether I’ve read it or not. Believe me on this one. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/50 "2010-02-17T01:20:36Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > The final filter is the government saying that no one can see the book. Is that what you want? > > Besides those people who enjoy what he wrote (and being at work I don’t even want to find out what it is) anyone doing critical research on Delany might be interested in this book as input on what makes him tick. So that is a non-perverted set of readers right there. No, I was hoping that there are some things that all could agree are too far. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/51 "2010-02-17T01:21:41Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > You’re assuming that anybody who reads a book like \*Hogg \*is only doing so to get off on it. But different people will have different experiences with the same text. Some demented individuals might read \*Hogg \*for sensual pleasure, but others might read it because they WANT to be shocked and horrified. Censorship isn’t just wrong from a utilitarian perspective, but also from an aesthetic one – it denies the creative agency involved in the act of reading and insists that any work only has one privileged interpretation. You have given me much to think about. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/52 "2010-02-17T01:24:18Z")
> [@Blalron](#): > > The Bible condones slavery, rape, and genocide. And also the eternal torture of those who don’t believe in Jesus. If we’re using any objective criteria of value here, instead of just arbitrary popular whim, we’re better off without it. > > That’s the problem with putting every book up for a popular vote. The majority can be, and often are wrong. History has shown that quite amply. What if the Southern States had the power to ban “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” because it made slave owners uncomfortable? I see your point about UTC, but Hogg is not addressing anything of that nature. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/53 "2010-02-17T01:26:16Z")
[QUOTE=FE3O4ENAIL] I see your point about UTC, but Hogg is not addressing anything of that nature. [/QUOTE] Did you actually read the book? -XT ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/54 "2010-02-17T01:28:59Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > If I can do that, in other countries I can ban the bible. (And I’d bet money it’s already been done.) Do you like _that_ idea? > > Serioulsy, book-banning is an idea built on the idea that you’ll always be on top of the heap everywhere, and that things will never ever change. It’s a very precarious condition- suppose for a moment, just a moment, that democrats took the house, the senate, _and_ the presidency all at the same time. (Unlikely, I know.) At that point they _could_ try and ban all republican documentation and materials, give or take that pesky amendment. Would that be a good thing, objectively speaking? Lest you think this is fantastic, they’d _hardly_ be the first government to ban a book. I wasn’t looking for a power to ban books, just the feeling that there are some things as people we can agree are not needed to be written. Maybe we need a book on turduckin necroiphilia, but with a dead puppy stuffed into a dead toddler, stuffed into a dead goat. Shit, see what you made me do! ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/55 "2010-02-17T01:30:19Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > No, I was hoping that there are some things that all could agree are too far. How long have you been on the Internet? You must not have had many accidental and unwanted hits in your searches or you wouldn’t be thinking that. I suspect that there are certain types of books that get published in small editions to a limited audience. If everyone agreed something went too far, it wouldn’t get published, right? If we started free associating we’d probably come up with topics so weird or so preverted that no one has ever touched them. Then no one complains about them. You having a book to complain about contradicts your premise by its very existence. ETA: You came up with a splendid example as I was writing. Or I hope it is just a splendid example, not a book proposal! ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/56 "2010-02-17T01:34:40Z")
[QUOTE=FE3O4ENAIL] I wasn’t looking for a power to ban books, just the feeling that there are some things as people we can agree are not needed to be written. [/QUOTE] Considering the wide diversity of people, attitudes, mores, world view, taboos, etc just in America, let alone world wide, this doesn’t seem to be a very realistic dream. You need to understand that what YOU might find distasteful someone else might not…and vice versa. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/57 "2010-02-17T01:38:39Z")
> [@FE3O4ENAIL](#): > > I wasn’t looking for a power to ban books, just the feeling that there are some things as people we can agree are not needed to be written. > Maybe we need a book on turduckin necroiphilia, but with a dead puppy stuffed into a dead toddler, stuffed into a dead goat. Of COURSE most of us can agree that there are some things that don’t need to be written. That’s not the point. The point is, if somebody else feels that one of those things DOES need to be written, do we need to prevent them from doing it? To resist censorship is not equivalent to approving or condoning the censorable material. So to answer the question in your thread title: We probably don’t need a book like _Hogg_. Probably very few if any of us have any interest whatsoever in reading a book like _Hogg_, or would get anything worthwhile out of it if we did. However, the distastefulness or uselessness of a book like _Hogg_ is not a sufficient reason for forbidding its publication. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/58 "2010-02-17T01:41:26Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > To resist censorship is not equivalent to approving or condoning the censorable material. Actually, that is condoning it. But of course, they should condone it. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/59 "2010-02-17T01:44:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Of COURSE most of us can agree that there are some things that don’t need to be written. That’s not the point. > > The point is, if somebody else feels that one of those things DOES need to be written, do we need to prevent them from doing it? > > To resist censorship is not equivalent to approving or condoning the censorable material. > > So to answer the question in your thread title: We probably don’t need a book like _Hogg_. Probably very few if any of us have any interest whatsoever in reading a book like _Hogg_, or would get anything worthwhile out of it if we did. However, the distastefulness or uselessness of a book like _Hogg_ is not a sufficient reason for forbidding its publication. OK, but I don’t like it. ---
**Author:** ![FE3O4ENAIL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ba9def/32.png) [@FE3O4ENAIL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FE3O4ENAIL)\ **Post date:** [February 17, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261/60 "2010-02-17T01:46:10Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Did you actually read the book? > > -XT No. I am going with what has been posted. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-do-we-need-a-book-like-hogg/529261.md?page=4)