Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell
Roger, you're right, "ban" isn't quite the right word. I try to avoid hyperbole as much as I can and I think I've been using the word "withdrawn" up until my last post. I think I stand by my opinions otherwise. I do think the whole "you can't cancel yourself" idea is a little disingenuous. You can certainly be put under a lot of persuasive pressure to do so, as in the case of the Amanda Gorman translator recently discussed here, who "voluntarily" stepped down. I think if more publishers begin following suit with older books containing "problematic" content, then the difference between "withdrawn" and "banned" will become purely semantic. I hope that doesn't happen but I don't feel massively confident. Maybe I've just been "hooked by the nose" by right-wingers, as John says. I don't feel like I have. Most of what I've read about this has come from the BBC and the Guardian. I'm not losing sleep over this but my discomfort at it feels completely reasonable to me, though apparently not to many others.
|
I guess ultimately it depends on how offensive (or not) you consider the withdrawn titles to be. I suspect you wouldn't be troubled at all by their withdrawal if they were unambiguously loaded to the gills with overt racist content, complete with use of the n-word and other assorted offenses. Under those circumstances, I suspect, you wouldn't be blaming societal pressure for forcing the Seuss people to do something they wouldn't have done on their own, but you'd be applauding their decision. On the other hand, if you find nothing at all offensive in the Seuss titles, then I can see the issue from the other perspective. The problem is, these books are somewhere in the middle of that spectrum. And while you may feel their offenses are minor enough to overlook, shouldn't that be a decision left to the Seuss people themselves, both as a matter of conscience and a matter of how they feel best to preserve, protect and promote the Seuss name and body of work?