Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

compactmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#31

Post by slim »

AllegedAlec wrote: post #7
nhchris wrote: post #3

For some events, research is only allowed to conclude that they were as bad as we thought, or that they were even worse. Anything else is professional suicide. Like a control circuit only able to correct the system in one direction, it will drift in that direction without limit. It turns history first to myth, then to fairy tale.

See also https://circumcision.org/circumcision-permanently-alters-the...

  We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic “circumstraint” using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant’s head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.
what is this ? I can't parse. Is it an april fool or something ?

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#32

Post by defrost »

rippercushions wrote: post #16
CiaranMcNulty wrote: post #13

It's sort of extraordinary that the conclusion of the piece is that the book was published and he was paid in full Poor guy

It was successfully cancelled at one publisher, he was just lucky/famous enough to find another. How many people don't get a second chance?

> How many people don't get a second chance?

The vast majority of people attempting to get published during the "Golden Age of Science Fiction" for starters.

Even reading the autobiographical writings of those that became big names you'll find a seemingly endless runway of rejection before liftoff, cancelled acceptances, demands for rewrites, multiple publisher approaches, etc.

One publisher getting cold feet isn't the end of the world, ask any writer that's made it.

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#33

Post by pbhjpbhj »

exizt88 wrote: post #20
vkou wrote: post #5

I will happily point out that pride in the former empire is exactly what's driving Russian aggression in the Ukraine at this moment.

There was a much more pragmatic fundamental reason for the regime to start the war: siloviki don’t tolerate democratic governments on their borders, as they might inspire the repressed population to demand the same democracy. Pride in the empire is an ideological crutch to explain the war rather than a reason for it. Also it’s just “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”.

>Also it’s just “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”. //

In en-gb "the Ukraine" is the established form; without "the" it sounds strange. There's no academy that dictates acceptable form for English language. Do you think it's unclear? Is there a good reason to be a language fascist on this point?

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#34

Post by defrost »

nhchris wrote: post #25
defrost wrote: post #12

For those not reading the article, this is a tale of failed 'Cancellation' (if it can indeed be called as such). The “Ethics and Empire” project continues and grows, and the book “Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning” was published despite the initial publisher exercising their option to withdraw and not publish. Comments such as "research is only allowed to conclude .. " etc. are not supported here, just adages about twis…

> Comments such as "research is only allowed to conclude .. " etc. are not supported here The ability of people to refuse to understand that which they don't want to never ceases to amaze me. His colleagues abandoned him, and his institution disavowed his work. That on rare occasion academics are famous, foolish, and stubborn enough to get their work out despite such disincentives does not mean such threats are not e…

> If you go against the zeitgeist, you better be ready to weather the storm that'll bring upon you.

Sure, Leopold Kronecker shat on Cantor from a great height .. welcome to the entire history of acedemia.

In this case things came good a lot faster than they did for Cantor.

    Happily, I was able to repair it.

    Four fresh historians—including one dissenter from the Centre for Global History—stepped up, three of them, as it happens, wearing slightly darker-than-pink skins.

    And since 2019, the three annual conferences have attracted more than 40 historians from Oxbridge and elsewhere in Britain, and from California to the Netherlands.

    “Ethics and Empire” will complete its work in the summer of 2023.

    So, that story has a happy ending: The attempted cancellation failed, albeit not for want of concerted trying.
( oh, and the "cancelled" book was published on the second attempt with another publisher )

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#35

Post by pbhjpbhj »

roundandround wrote: post #29
drekipus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the USSR an "empire" in the imperial sense (genuine question) ? I had thought the revolution was to destroy all that, remove the czar, bring in autocratic states, etc. I feel like there is a distinction here but I can't easily point to it. But they were very anti-empire afaik

I think the USSR was a colonialist empire in the post Napolean Republican sense. The ideals of the exceptional Republic make it the perfect overseer of the implementation of its system upon inferior nations that lack the vision or commitment to find and implement the perfect ideals. My impression from how it is coverred in the US is that the UK's early colonialism was simple feudal empire (the Queen is pleased with y…

Who were the colonisers?

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#36

Post by nickreese »

Read the article and read the comments section.

For HN the current debate (28 comments) really reflects how charged this topic is.

Cancellation of ideas is a topic worth discussing. If we can't discuss it here, a much more rational place than other venues, where can this be meaningfully discussed?

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#37

Post by pbhjpbhj »

brazzy wrote: post #19
drekipus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was the USSR an "empire" in the imperial sense (genuine question) ? I had thought the revolution was to destroy all that, remove the czar, bring in autocratic states, etc. I feel like there is a distinction here but I can't easily point to it. But they were very anti-empire afaik

An empire is not defined by its internal form of government, but by having a poweful core state that keeps other territories (provinces, colonies, client states) in permanent subservience.

Surely not, an empire has an emperor/empress (an Imperator of some sort).

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#38

Post by exizt88 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #33
exizt88 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a much more pragmatic fundamental reason for the regime to start the war: siloviki don’t tolerate democratic governments on their borders, as they might inspire the repressed population to demand the same democracy. Pride in the empire is an ideological crutch to explain the war rather than a reason for it. Also it’s just “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”.

>Also it’s just “Ukraine”, not “the Ukraine”. // In en-gb "the Ukraine" is the established form; without "the" it sounds strange. There's no academy that dictates acceptable form for English language. Do you think it's unclear? Is there a good reason to be a language fascist on this point?

Financial Times, The Times and the BBC all omit the “the”. So I’d say that this is the established form.

The “the Ukraine” form was used to refer to Ukrainian territory being part of the USSR or the Russian empire in the past. But the language seems to have evolved now to omit the article.

Also I don’t think I’m being a fascist about it at all.

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#39

Post by nhchris »

rxhernandez wrote: post #27
nhchris wrote: post #3

For some events, research is only allowed to conclude that they were as bad as we thought, or that they were even worse. Anything else is professional suicide. Like a control circuit only able to correct the system in one direction, it will drift in that direction without limit. It turns history first to myth, then to fairy tale.

I think this is predicated on the ends justifying the means since the author seems to acknowledge that there are some deeply problematic things with colonialism while simultaneously acknowledging that they should have pride in the results. What should be of no surprise to anyone, anywhere, is that people are deeply unmotivated to ever see the ends in a positive light if they were on the other end of that barrel full…

It has nothing to do with ends vs. means, and I have no idea where you got that from. It is about reaching truth.

To give a simple example, the question is "Did the Umayyad caliphate bring new irrigation techniques to Spain? What was the overall balance between harm and benefit they brought to Spain's population?", and not "Do the new irrigation techniques justify their colonization of Spain?"

Somehow, we are able to dispassionately examine the harms and benefits when it comes to Islamic-ruled Spain. So why should we look at Britain's empire any differently?

Re: Anatomy of a Book Cancellation

#40

Post by roundandround »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #35
roundandround wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the USSR was a colonialist empire in the post Napolean Republican sense. The ideals of the exceptional Republic make it the perfect overseer of the implementation of its system upon inferior nations that lack the vision or commitment to find and implement the perfect ideals. My impression from how it is coverred in the US is that the UK's early colonialism was simple feudal empire (the Queen is pleased with y…

Who were the colonisers?

Private people who follow (or are relatives of) the military and other state personnel of a coloniser are generally the colonists and might be the only colonists unless a state starts forcibly exporting people like the UK and USSR did.

(If you mean Napoleon, he was of course defeated and Austria setup a plan to contain France's ambitions, but his colonial aims could already be seen in his short lived satellite government in Switzerland.)

Post reply on HN