A new moralism is gripping the literary world • Hacker News Board

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#271

Post by moron4hire » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:37 PM UTC

jfengel wrote: post #222

moron4hire wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if you can sell the "5,000 to 10,000 copies in a week" that is the supposed threshold for getting notice from the NY Times, do you really need help selling your book? Selling books gets you on the list, getting on the list sells books. Which is the bigger effect? Given the NY Times growing irrelivance in the market, the high-profile cases of having their list gamed more than once, their ongoing war…

I dunno. I do have an indirect personal experience: a podcaster wrote a book, and asked all of his followers to pre-order it in the hopes of getting on the NYT bestseller list. Which I did, and it did. I don't know how much that helped, but the underlying logic makes sense. He had a medium-sized niche audience, but their word of mouth wasn't going to sell a lot of extra copies. This put the book out on a world stage.…

Does that mean that the list is useful because it's gameable?

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#272

Post by cameldrv » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 8:53 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #193

cameldrv wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Seuss foundation is free to stop publishing the books. I don’t see how that creates an obligation for Amazon or eBay to prohibit sale, nor for any library that was happily lending these last week to pull them from circulation entirely. After all of this, it is considerably easier to procure the writings of Adolf Hitler than of Dr. Seuss. That is very strange and wrong.

Did anyone say it creates an obligation for Amazon or eBay to ban them? Those companies chose to do so voluntarily under their existing policies, which used to be a thing conservatives supported. The Mein Kampf comparisons also tend to leave out two key factors: most of Dr. Seuss’ books are intended for children and they’re presented without critical analysis. I don’t think you’d find much objection to the same kind…

I wouldn't call myself a conservative. Obviously as private companies, Amazon and eBay are able to make rules about what they allow to be sold. I do think it creates a real chilling effect when both Amazon and eBay refuse to sell these books, since they are essentially an oligopoly in book sales.

It's actually the libraries pulling them from the shelves that seems so bizarre to me. I could understand them moving them from the children's section to somewhere else, but to remove them from circulation entirely, and then presumably put a bunch of other books out on the table for banned books week is just strange.

Public libraries have historically been a big institutional force for the rights of free speech and free thought, fighting in court to be able to loan out (and keep secret the names of borrowers) very controversial books. I honestly cannot understand sacrificing those principles and all of that history over Dr. Seuss.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#273

Post by whydoibother » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:01 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #269

whydoibother wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares who invented it? Do you think babbage designed the fabs TSMC uses now?

So by your definition, White people can write books about the Black experience because they contributed to it.

That doesn't follow from what I said at all. But you pretty clearly aren't trying to discuss in good faith, so there isn't much point in arguing.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#274

Post by Pxtl » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

at_a_remove wrote: post #246

Pxtl wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're really curious about this matter, film analysis YouTuber Lindsay Ellis has an excellent video on the history of depictions of trans people (primarily in film) and puts Rowling's work into that context, tracing it back to Psycho and beyond. https://youtu.be/cHTMidTLO60 Basically, there's a long and sordid history of the Cross Dressing Predator as a literary and film trope and this has been used against trans…

So it's not what she did, it's what other people did before her. Now, finally, we can call someone to task for it. Ah, this has so many parallels now with so many other things going on.

Yes, bigotry involves history.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#275

Post by whydoibother » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:05 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #253

leephillips wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not even sure there is a single “white” culture within the US. I mainly see the idea promoted by people who want to absorb some credit for the accomplishments of others. See some of the other comments here, about computers being invented by “my people”.

Skin color is s an arbitrary physiological trait. There's no bald people culture. Or innie bellybutton culture.

It's not arbitrary when black folk were specifically enslaved and segregated due to the color of their skin, and therefore developed a culture around that shared experience.

If we enslaved people based on their baldness for a few centuries and then kept discriminating against them for another century, I am sure they would have their own culture born from that shared experience.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#276

Post by whydoibother » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:06 PM UTC

DC1350 wrote: post #203

whydoibother wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't. British in India were colonizers who sought to divide and subjugate the Indian population. The PoC who live in Europe aren't there to colonize it. They are part of the population and therefore the culture.

Steve Jobs and Justin Trudeau were part of the culture

This makes no sense.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#277

Post by DC1350 » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:13 PM UTC

whydoibother wrote: post #276

DC1350 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steve Jobs and Justin Trudeau were part of the culture

This makes no sense.

Therefore Indians are not POC

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#278

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:21 PM UTC

h2odragon wrote: post #121

When the right wanted to ban media, a quire reasonable counter argument was "you don't have to buy, or read, the things you don't like". Where's that argument today? Why is anything "problematic" an assault against society as a whole, automatically, as well as whatever underprivileged group its offensive to? Have humans lost the ability to tolerate the knowledge that someone, somewhere, may disagree with them? Or is…

There is a more vicious form of cancellation going on.

- For example, only in 2003 was gay sex legal throughout the US. Is that a form of cancelling?

- It’s still legal to fire or not hire gay people. Is that a form of cancelling?

- US conservatives also fight for the right of any public official to follow the calling of Jesus by refusing to sign marriage licenses. Or the constitutional right to refuse business.

- Does one not remember the Bush Jr presidential race where a US constitution ban on gay marriage was the get out to vote issue for Christian evangelicals?

- We have doctors who cannot follow the prescriptions of their professional societies, such as the American Pediatric Society, because they are banned by law from advising youths on transgender treatment.

- There is a race around the country to make it harder for those over 65 to vote, or to reduce voting locations.

What is Cancellation? At the core of cancellation is the freedom of association. But freedom of association doesn’t make it so TX can prosecute gay men for having sex in a bedroom. Freedom of association means people either like you or don’t like you, and they will either associate with you or they won’t.

Any discussion of harmony must account for a history of cruelty.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#279

Post by acdha » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:37 PM UTC

cameldrv wrote: post #272

acdha wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did anyone say it creates an obligation for Amazon or eBay to ban them? Those companies chose to do so voluntarily under their existing policies, which used to be a thing conservatives supported. The Mein Kampf comparisons also tend to leave out two key factors: most of Dr. Seuss’ books are intended for children and they’re presented without critical analysis. I don’t think you’d find much objection to the same kind…

I wouldn't call myself a conservative. Obviously as private companies, Amazon and eBay are able to make rules about what they allow to be sold. I do think it creates a real chilling effect when both Amazon and eBay refuse to sell these books, since they are essentially an oligopoly in book sales. It's actually the libraries pulling them from the shelves that seems so bizarre to me. I could understand them moving them…

It's less whether you're a conservative than that almost all of the people pushing this as a story are, and they're doing it with the intention of politicizing it so you really want to look for primary sources and make sure that critical details aren't being removed.

Librarians are generally quite opposed to banning books and I haven't seen any sign that this is different: some large systems (e.g. NYPL) have said they're keeping them in the general collection and others (e.g. Chicago) have said that they're temporarily removing them from circulation while deciding what to do long-term. I would bet that the major of local decisions will end up being along the lines of either not shelving them in the children's section or having some kind of contextual note for people who request it.

Re: A new moralism is gripping the literary world

#280

Post by threatofrain » Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

shockeychap wrote: post #194

happytoexplain wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is anything classifiable as "wokism" automatically morally and intellectually bankrupt junk? That sounds an awful lot like simply dismissing a broad category of opinions that may contain a reasonably moral/intellectual subset, much like the thing that wokism is being accused of right now.

Fair observation. But consider that proponents of "wokism" have busily engaged in censorship of thought and speech - showing no interest in a fair and open debate - while simultaneously demanding unquestioning fealty to its principles. For me, that speaks to an intrinsic and inherent moral and intellectual bankruptcy.