On Beyond Zarathustra! (Seuss in the Nous)

Took a quick look, John. Didn’t read but a word or three, but it looks SUPER.

ps — good to see you back. Don’t be a stranger.

I’ve always thought that Seuss deserved the Nobel Prize for Literature. Seriously.

Sometimes I remember a racist joke or comment I made way back then and instinctively slap my head in disgust (hard). It was an assumption people grew up with.

The whole American brouhaha made me curious, so I finally looked at a couple of the illustrations alleged to be racist. I’d never even heard the name of this Seuss fellow until a few years ago, so I’m not partial to him in any way. Well, from my outsider perspective, all I saw was some silly, stereotypical and outdated depictions of Chinese people, Inuits and Arabs, analogous to the drawing of Russians as Cossacks with Balalaikas and bears, of Americans as ruddy blonds in cowboy costumes, of Frenchmen as black-haired people with berets and thin moustaches etc. I don’t think stereotyping by itself is racist, since racism is supposed to be a negative attitude towards a group, and who says that having a Balalaika, a beret or a moustache is something negative? If anything, accepting the assumptions that they are negative things is what seems to be racist.

Of course, an adult should realise that such stereotypes are simplistic and inaccurate, but silly children’s comic books are the last place where you can expect to find accuracy and nuance. Stereotypes and exaggerations are staples of caricatures and comic books, indeed I suppose that they are their main selling point. Admittedly, I suppose it’s a matter of the degree of exaggeration, too – the old-style American cartoon depictions of black people do, I believe, magnify their features so extremely as to make them seem freakish. I didn’t see that in these particular pictures, though. So yeah, I may be missing something, but this does look like another instance of something that educated people in the West are just required to accept uncritically in order not to seem backward and evil.

On the other hand, you know what was kinda racist to Asian people? Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki! I’d almost dare say it displayed a somewhat offensive attitude to the value of Asian lives. OK, I’m being facetious – I’m sure the US would have done exactly the same to ‘Caucasian’ foreigners, if that had been deemed expedient, maybe only a little more reluctantly. But I have no doubt that I speak for many people when I say that I’d much rather have Americans focus in their infinite sensitivity a bit less on how foreigners are drawn in children’s comic books and a bit more on not indiscriminately killing them. Remarkably, the notion that exterminating the civilian populations of two Japanese cities was a bad thing to do would mostly likely be far more controversial in US polite society that the notion that drawing Japanese people with slanted eyes was. And such a hierarchy of priorities is what I would really call ‘problematic’.

None of this has anything to do with “wokeness,” a kind of black American political consciousness. Just employ another right wing / anti-id pol bogey, like PC.

Seuss’s racism persists outside of his children’s literature offerings and was handily employed in service of American propaganda. It was not inadvertent, but a feature of the bottom shelf work he was doing at the time. He could proverbially weep bitter tears on behalf of European children whose deaths were supposed to hang heavy on American’s souls, burdened by their government’s cruel isolationism, while endorsing the unlawful seizure and imprisonment of American families, tainted by their treasonous impulses owing to “foreign” heritage. And the fact that he disavowed all of this when it was in the country’s interests (or that of his own bottom line, or even his conscience) to do so makes the disingenuous argument that these views were universal and banal (you do not need to draw ‘toons in aid of uncontroversial policies) all the more moot.

Sebastian H is just inventing a world where this very elementary observation is some kind of novel conspiracy by the PC hordes, where there isn’t already an abundance of scholarship on all things Geisel that centers this portion of his output and like a lot of lay and popular analyses constructs around it, in some cases, a narrative of rehabilitation.

Anyway, there was no sudden or recent “push” to make his work “seem” racist because it has long been understood, no gnashing of teeth necessary, that he dabbled in racism if it paid well and that his body of work is riddled with dehumanizing ethnic and xenophobic caricatures. Just like a lot of contemporary artists long since out of print.

F. Foundling @ 8

“I’d never even heard the name of this Seuss fellow until a few years ago”

Well, bully for you. I´m not sure “being unaware of certain works until recently” and “being neutral regarding the content of certain works” are as synonymous as you appear to be positing, but consider your position as a non-Seussfan with indifference to the works stated.

“who says that having a Balalaika, a beret or a moustache is something negative?”

Might I suggest that perhaps people being depicted stereotypically could offer some insight as to whether or not it is negative – perhaps it is worth asking them?

More to the point, I can´t help but note that you first make an analogy between the Seuss images in question and what you state as analogous concepts (e.g. wearing a beret), then discuss the analogous concepts you raise rather than Seuss images (some) people have objected to. This seems rather an odd line of approach, given that (to the best of my understanding) no-one has argued that “wearing a beret” is a good reason to voluntarily let books go out of print.

Perhaps, were you to rephrase your question to “who says that describing Asian people as ´helpers who all wear their eyes at a slant´ from ´countries no one can spell´ is something negative?”, it might prove illuminating. You may also wish to consider the idea of context – even if a stereotype is not necessarily overtly negative in and of itself, if it has been used in the context of dehumanising people than it will still carry that connotation even if you personally don´t see much to object to.

“I didn’t see that in these particular pictures, though”

Well, I suppose “eye of the beholder” and all that – but you really saw nothing one could reasonably object to about the illustration accompanying the verse “I´ll go to the African island of Yerka[…]” in If I ran the Zoo? Curious.

“So yeah, I may be missing something, but this does look like another instance of something that educated people in the West are just required to accept uncritically in order not to seem backward and evil.”

Is there any greater example of oppression than a vastly profitable international company voluntarily letting 6 books (out of some 60-odd) go out of print, and then mumbling a statement that “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong.”? When will such tyranny cease?

As far as I am aware, no one is requiring “educated people in the West” (or even people who are uneducated or not from the West, for that matter) to accept this uncritically “in order not to seem backward and evil”.

To me, it seems a company letting (some of its least popular and worst selling) books go out of print was not particularly controversial until the sort of people who use the phrase “political correctness gone mad!” unironically decided this was an example of “cancel culture” to which they fervently objected – and then, as they say, the whole thing proceeded with a tedious inevitability.

So, what seems to be happening is that (some) people are judging (some) other people according to (some of) the things they say and do. Sometimes those judgements may be reasonable and well founded, sometimes they may not. This is – at least in my experience – generally a function of interacting with people, and hardly unique to any particular culture or period in history. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

“but silly children’s comic books are the last place where you can expect to find accuracy and nuance”

Whether or not that may be true says little about whether or not it should be true – I would venture that it is possible for “silly children’s comic books” (which seems rather a contemptuous dismissal of a whole genre of literature, but that is just my personal opinion) to contain a certain degree of nuance and address topics thoughtfully. Perhaps expecting better of “silly children´s books” might even be a good thing?

Even setting that point aside, The Butter Battle Book (for example) by the same author is generally considered an anti-war parable for the nuclear arms race – yet for some reason no-one is arguing “well, you shouldn´t expect that sort of discussion from silly children´s books…”.

“On the other hand, you know what was kinda racist to Asian people?”

Putting people of Asian heritage in interment camps during the war? Oh wait, that isn´t what you mention – possibly because that is indeed a somewhat controversial topic.

Never mind, then.

Let´s continue following your attempt to veer suddenly from “oh no, there is controversy regarding depictions of people in some books” to the topics of US war crimes and the nuclear attacks on Japanese civilians during WW2. I´m sure this will be handled with great care and attention, and won´t at all prove to be overblown assertions and theatrics.

“I have no doubt that I speak for many people”

” I’d much rather have Americans focus in their infinite sensitivity a bit less on how foreigners are drawn in children’s comic books and a bit more on not indiscriminately killing them”

Gosh, if only it was possible to do both. Maybe one might even find that the Venn diagrams of “people opposing US war crimes and people opposing racist caricatures” and “people supporting US war crimes and people supporting racist caricatures” overlap somewhat. Who can say? But by suddenly conflating “a section of Americans who have opinions regarding some Seuss books” with “Americans” you certainly won´t be able to.

One should certainly be careful not to generalise, but it is notable that (from polling data) Democrat voters are (and were) far less likely to support the Iraq war (for example) than Republicans (currently 27% vs 61% D-R). I cannot say whether or not it is Democrat voters who are far more likely to object to the depictions of people in the out-of-print Seuss books, but I think it is not unreasonable to posit that might be the case. Should that turn out to be true, I would hope it is fairly obvious why I would find your comment somewhat of an oversimplified generalisation.

“And such a hierarchy of priorities is what I would really call ‘problematic’.”

I certainly would agree it would be good if the US stopped indiscriminately killing foreigners – I would also extend that principle universally, as I dare say it is no less objectionable to be indiscriminately killed by any other nation (perhaps you may agree).

Final comment:

It is, perhaps, worth noting what JH said in the OP:

“No, Seuss wasn’t cancelled by the Woke left. Yes, it is completely nuts that you currently cannot buy On Beyond Zebra on eBay. That’s crazy. It’s a weird mix of factors, this screwy case.“

One company has stopped publishing some books (which is hardly an unusual occurrence), and another has delisted these books on their auction site (which may well be an overreaction – but it would hardly be the first time a company has overreacted when they are worried their reputation/profits may be risked, and frequently as often in opposition to the “woke” position as against it). It isn´t as though these books are actually being banned, or that owning a copy will see you hauled off to a re-education camp. Indeed, the vast majority of Seuss´s books will remain in print and easily purchasable (including, perhaps it is cynical of me to note, the much more profitable ones).

I would tentatively suggest that if you really must complain about people overreacting to something, perhaps you should either avoid overreacting yourself or (as I am currently doing) at least appreciate the irony inherent to that approach.

Just a thought.

Okay, but speaking of prejudicial depictions of minorities:
How do actual Zoroastrians feel about Nietzsche’s appropriation of their religion’s founder?

I mean — I am not myself Parsi, but I have known several Parsi people in my life. (I can almost say, “some of my best friends are Parsis”, but in fact it’s been too long, and we have fallen out of touch.) They are real people! They are having some problems of demographic decline! Their religion was founded by Zarathustra!

I am glad that they are not going all Charlie Hebdo on people who draw pictures of their founding prophet and all — very glad. But does their situation deserve any consideration?

I’d love to hear from actual Zoroastrians in the thread.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-Parsis-Zoroastrians-think-of-Nietzches-book-Thus-Spake-Zarathustra?share=1
https://www.reddit.com/r/Zoroastrianism/comments/jmpjty/thoughts_on_thus_spoke_zarathustra/
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/philosopherszone/nietzsche-zarathustra-anda-controversial-sculpture/3330660

This has made my week. That is all.

steven t Johnson @ 21

I am by no means a fan of the current copyright laws nor the invisible free hand (nor capitalism in general, come to that), but on a practical level I don’t think it makes much sense to force a company to continue printing books if it doesn’t want to. As I have noted previously, the books being withdrawn from print were apparently not commercially successful (allegedly some having not sold any copies for years). It is, dare I say, possible that that might have factored in somewhat into the decision by the company. Indeed, while I cannot say for sure, I have a personal suspicion that “lack of commercial success” might even have been more a reason than any other – but I have no way to demonstrate that, so I won’t posit it with a high degree of confidence.

“My reactionary impulse is that all literature should be preserved in public libraries if possible.”

Then you will be surely pleased to learn that many libraries will be keeping these books on their shelves (including, in particular, the excellent legal deposit libraries).

I dare say it is possible you could even find copies on the internet (not, of course, that I would ever suggest downloading books off the internet for free – a crime I am reliably informed by anti-piracy adverts is worse than murder).

It is also worth noting that if you were of a purchasing mind, despite the e-bay fuss many of the books are still available from other retailers – including a little known company called “Amazon” – and, of course, from private collectors (though the prices seem to be a little high right now).

I think we can be reasonably confident that we are not going to see these books be erased from history any time soon (or, at least, no more so than any other books which are not particularly popular and ca. 70 years old).

“I do wonder how children reading these particular books are going to know they are racist caricatures. “

Quite likely they wouldn’t know these are racist caricatures. Indeed, they may think “slanty eyes” is a perfectly reasonable adjective for Asians, and that depicting black people with almost simian features is perfectly unobjectionable. While I don’t pretend to be able to read minds, it seems to me that that might be something of the issue (some) people are annoyed about.

“I also wonder if anyone truly believes Dr. Seuss books are structural racism that contaminates the white child’s mind.”

Why did you specify “white” – surely that is an odd artificial boundary to set? Anyway, perhaps it is worth revisiting what the company said: “These books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong”

Hmm – no mention of structural racism, no “contaminating the (white) children’s mind” – I’m afraid your question would seem something of a non sequiter, but perhaps google may provide some insight here?

Looking again at the statement from the company “these books portray people in ways that are hurtful and wrong” – do you think that this was unreasonable? And, assuming that this was the prime motivation for the company to withdraw these books from print (which, as I’ve noted before, I am sceptical about), do you think that that is an unreasonable motivation?

“Censoring Dr. Seuss seems more like a cheap diversion from real political work.”

I presume that, as Dr. Seuss has been dead for some 20 years, you are referring to the works and not the individual. However:

1) In what way is this censorship? Please be specific.
2) Who do you think is doing the censoring in this situation? Again, please be specific.
3) Of those people or organisations you believe are engaged in the censoring, what real political work do you think they are diverting from?

“But it’s a shame that the song Zip-a-dee-doo-dah (official title?) has disappeared”

Except, my quick google tells me, from Youtube, Spotify, Amazon (which lists it as “not discontinued”), etc….I dare say I wish my writing had disappeared to that degree.

Final thought: As I said in my previous comment, as far as I can tell a publisher has let some very old and not particularly profitable books lapse out of print. It is difficult to see much for me to find concerning in that, unless one believes companies should be required to keep books in print indefinitely. I can see no evidence there has been a government edict, that any retailer or library has been forced to remove these 6 books from their shelves, and nothing exceptionally unusual except for the (as far as I can tell unjustified) elevation to “culture war” status.

As it is, many of these books are still available as physical copies – and, given the internet being what it is, digital copies will likely survive up to the point civilisation collapses (which should be at least another 5 years or so). So those who wish to do so will no doubt be able to find copies themselves.

While I realise that tone is difficult to tell, I am not being snarky when I say I really struggle to see what people are finding so outrageous about all this.

… I really struggle to see what people are finding so outrageous about all this.

Possibly you overestimate their good sense, goodwill, and integrity. Entertain a low opinion of them and you may find their behaviour requires less of a struggle to understand.

The aptly named notGoodenough should think that the first paragraph of my comment is first because it’s the issue I thought most important. A company man like notGoodenough may not be able to conceive such a thought, but I do think the private publishers should not be making choices in the pursuit of profit. Even random selections from submissions would be better in the long run, hard as it is to imagine a world without the wisdom of capitalists making the decisions. There’s no “unless…”

Unlike the rhetorical questions, when I write “I wonder…” it really does mean I’m not sure. The idea that a child hearing the phrase “slant eyes” will be taught racism is not entirely convincing. The idea that a child will, among all the other caricatured and cartoonish characters, internalize the resemblance to simians for a particular group of actual people is not entirely convincing either. There is one type of censorship I wholeheartedly approve, which is a grown parent whose fed up with a lifetime of stereotypes refusing to read a sample, childish as it is, to a child is not the same thing as the publisher ditching it. A publisher ditching Dr. Seuss for profit is the same as a publisher ditching the Oz book where Tip turns into a girl but L. Frank Baum completely bungles transgender issues.

It is good I suppose that a song is still available online, as yet. A change in the monetary structure of YouTube can change that long before the world wide web collapses in fiscal Armageddon, though. The presumption that most libraries don’t purge, purge, purge, ruthlessly, is wrong. Perry Mason mysteries are gone, C.M. Kornbluth is gone, even Gore Vidal is almost gone. The ebooks in public libraries so far as I can tell are limited to one person at a time, plus there are difficulties in ebook format, as in, doesn’t even carry them all. The existence of multiple formats is itself a commercial thing, which is notGoodenough in my opinion. Digital is not forever either, as different corporations are striving mightily to lock up libraries for exclusive content. A change of policy, like selling the library and the movie or song you permanently rented from Amazon is no longer available! Of course if you pay all the digital companies, that solves that problem?

Like the childish belief that information rules the world and dirty smokestack industries (much less dirt farms!) are still most important, the idea that digital is forever but hard copies aren’t, are I believe very mistaken.

On the specific issue of On Beyond Zebra, the hurt done could have been fixed by the publisher’s catalog honestly describing the book. The case that the hurt requires more needs to be made. The wrongness? Look, when it comes to wrongness, the wrongness that offends prudes and jingoes is most likely going to win more times than not. Endorsing double standards is a bad strategy because they can have double standards too.

John Holbo @ 25

[apologies if there are multiple comments – for some reason CT is behaving oddly for me right now, so please feel free to delete repeats!]

Perhaps I should have been more clear – I meant, “I struggle to see what is so outrageous about Dr Seuss Enterprises pulling some of their books from print”. Now perhaps I was wrong, but my interpretation of the comments from steven t johnson and F. Foundling was less that they were referring to the actions of eBay, but more the actions of Dr Seuss Enterprises. If I have misinterpreted their comments then I certainly apologise – but again, my understanding was that the actions of Dr Seuss Enterprises were the topic being discussed.

However, to comment on the eBay situation – it is worth noting that what they did was cease the trading of the 6 books in question. To the best of my knowledge, they had nothing to do with decision to cease publishing these books, nor are they censoring the books in any meaningful sense of the word – the most they have done is stopped trade on their platform. You can say this is silly and short sighted (gosh, how unlike capitalism to lead to short sighted and silly decisions) and that their actions are not going to be in any way productive – I would tend to agree (as I did in my previous comment).

However, I can’t help but wonder if there would have been 1/10th of all this fuss if Dr Seuss Enterprises had withdrawn the books from print with the statement they were simply unprofitable. Or if eBay had ceased to support the trade by saying something like “we are concerned that the rapid inflation of prices on these books is leading to price gouging – we are pausing trade until we can assess the situation”. I suspect that people would have generally accepted that sort of thing with no real issue, which perhaps says something about our societies.

Let me try to be clear here – if people were merely saying “well, eBay are a bunch of silly sausages who overreacted” or “well, I am disappointed that these books are going out of print” I can certainly understand that point of view – but when people bandy words like “censorship” and “banned” and “educated people in the West are just required to accept this uncritically” I don’t think it is unreasonable to posit that such language may be…well, a little disproportionate? I mean, certainly people are entitled to express their opinions, but the rhetoric seems to be implying that what has happened is equivalent to book burnings and mass censorship. And surely, if it is reasonable to say “eBay were silly and overreacted”, it is equally reasonable to point out that many of the people reacting to “eBay overreacting” have also overreacted?

Moreover, it is perhaps worth noting that much of the kerfuffle appears to have focused on Dr Seuss Enterprises having withdrawn from print 6 books from print with the justification that these seem to contain somewhat dubious imagery. I’m afraid that I still struggle to see why this generated the degree of hysteria it seemingly has.

If I sound a bit tired, it is because I am. It seems to me that fairly regularly that there will be huge hysterical headlines about how “X is cancelled” or “Y is banned” and so on, and generally speaking it turns out to simply not be true. I take this seriously, because to me “censorship” and “banned” and so on are serious concepts – and when people levy these sort of charges, I expect it to be backed up with some evidence of some serious actions. With the situation with Dr Seuss Enterprises, I’m afraid I am still waiting.

steven t Johnson @ 26

“The aptly named notGoodenough”

The very first sentence and already you have descended to personal insults – what a sad indication of the general quality of your arguments and comments. Still, I will give you points for starting as you intended to continue.

” should think that the first paragraph of my comment is first because it’s the issue I thought most important.”

Please quote where I have said otherwise.

I went through your comment highlighting points of apparent differing views, in the hopes of some fruitful discussion. Don´t worry though – you´ve done a good job of demonstrating the futility of hoping for any fruitful discussion with you.

“A company man like notGoodenough”

Except, of course, I am not a “company man” – as should be fairly obvious from my many comments advocating for the benefits of transnational socialism. So, it would seem either you haven´t bothered verifying the veracity of this comment (in which case you are lazy), you do not understand the meaning of “socialism” (in which case you are ignorant), or you are deliberately misrepresenting me (in which case you are dishonest).

I´m afraid I am long past the age I care to guess which is the case, but regardless your attempt to poison the well is noted.

I would gently point out that given the years I have spent as a fairly active socialist and general advocate for socialism and social democracy – often to my own physical and financial detriment – your little dig here is not only misplaced but also just a tad insulting. You may wish to consider moderating your ignorant, sneering contempt in future. Or not – the choice, as always, is yours.

“may not be able to conceive such a thought, but I do think the private publishers should not be making choices in the pursuit of profit.”

Firstly, there is a substantial difference between “should” and “will”. We live in a capitalist society (in case it has escaped your attention), and so private companies will generally make decisions with profit in mind (not always as the priority, but likely always as a consideration). If you think pointing this out is the same as supporting it, then you must spend quite a lot of your life in a state of confusion.

Now, please quote the text where I said “making decisions based on the pursuit of profit is a good thing”. Of course, I did not. I made the point that a company has made a decision potentially based on profit – and that this is hardly unusual under the system in which we live. And yet, despite this being a regular occurrence, for some reason this particular decision has generated a huge degree of outrage, particularly from people who (claim to) support the free market ideas. Now if you sincerely believe that the reason Fox News (for example) is currently having hysterics is because they object to a company making decisions based on profit…well, I would respectfully disagree.

You may think that pursuit of profit is a bad motivation (I would tend to concur), but if so than your objection would seem less to do with “Dr Seuss Enterprises have withdrawn some books from print” and more to do with “Dr Seuss Enterprises are a capitalist organisation”. However, that does not appear to have been the argument you initially advanced – your use of the word “censorship” gave me the impression you were objecting on the basis of “censorship”, because that is how words work.

”Even random selections from submissions would be better in the long run, hard as it is to imagine a world without the wisdom of capitalists making the decisions”

I can easily imagine a system which is not capitalist – this is one of the reasons I have been a socialist for some decades now – so I am not sure why you think this would be hard (perhaps you are generalising to much from your own experiences). However, I (apparently unlike you) am also capable of recognising the difference between the system under which we live and the system under which I would like to live.

I also recognise, as I pointed out, that many books have been withdrawn from print for many reasons – yet the level of outrage displayed in this case seems considerably higher than normal. So again, please explain why the withdrawal of these 6 books in particular is so much more objectionable than the many other occurrences? As I noted in my other comment, there is certainly a good discussion to be had regarding the preservation of media – but that does not appear to be the discussion you initially advanced (otherwise surely you would be addressing “books in general being withdrawn from print” and not “these specific 6 books being withdrawn from print”?).

“The idea that a child hearing the phrase “slant eyes” will be taught racism is not entirely convincing. The idea that a child will, among all the other caricatured and cartoonish characters, internalize the resemblance to simians for a particular group of actual people is not entirely convincing either.”

I did not claim any of those things – so I suspect either you are incapable of comprehending fairly basic sentences written in English, or you are engaging in a degree of dishonesty.

To recap: you said “I do wonder how children reading these particular books are going to know they are racist caricatures.”

In response, I pointed out that it seems quite reasonable to conclude they likely wouldn´t, as I was trying to address your apparent lack of certainty regarding this point (indicated by the use of “I wonder”) by offering what seems a plausible outcome. I also then noted that this leads to a potential issue, which seems to be the source of concern for (some) people. That issue is not, as you seem to be trying to imply, that seeing one image or phrased will magically turn children into racists – it is that if someone is continually exposed to racist imagery in a context where it is treated as normal, it is quite likely this will have some impact on their behaviour. This does not necessarily mean they will go around burning crosses while wearing white robes with “I am a racist” printed on them, but rather that it could influence the way they treat others (even if only on the superficial level of how they talk to them). If, for example, someone grew up with the understanding that referring to Asians as “slanty eyed” is unobjectionable, because everyone around them treated it as such, it is quite possible that they progressed to adulthood with that learned behaviour – and such behaviours are not always easy to unlearn afterwards.

This is rather an important point because, in the hypothetical you advanced, the child was learning that phrase in the context of adults not offering any perspective on why that phrase might be objectionable. And, as I said, that seems to be one of the issues about which (some) people seem to be concerned.

“There is one type of censorship I wholeheartedly approve”

You still have not made the case that the situation surrounding the Seuss books is in fact a case of censorship.

Perhaps the issue is that we have different definitions of “censorship”? To me, censorship is “the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security”.

The books in question are clearly not being prohibited, so that does not apply. I suppose one could make the argument “a publisher engaging in actions which make some books less available than they previously were” is “suppression”, but that would seem to me to be using the word “censorship” in such a way as to almost trivialise the meaning.

However, in the interests of clarity, perhaps you will expound upon your usage. For example, would you say that every time a fanfiction writer deletes their online work because they aren´t satisfied with it, that too is censorship? When Stephen King withdrew “Rage” from print, was that censorship – and should he have been forced to keep his book in print against his wishes? If I write a letter to my newspaper and they decline to publish it, is that censorship? Again, what, exactly, is the sense in which you are using this?

I wish to be clear I am not trying to be sarcastic here; I am trying to avoid making assumptions and so would actually prefer it if you could actually outline in what way you believe Dr. Seuss has been censored – so I will repeat my questions:

“1) In what way is this censorship? Please be specific.
2) Who do you think is doing the censoring in this situation? Again, please be specific.
3) Of those people or organisations you believe are engaged in the censoring, what real political work do you think they are diverting from?”

I hope you will consider answering these queries at some point, if only for the record.

“The presumption that most libraries don’t purge, purge, purge, ruthlessly, is wrong.”

My local library, funnily enough, is a building with physical constraints (perhaps yours is not). It does not – nor has it ever – maintain a copy of every single book ever. I dare say that some libraries (like mine) may even have to make decisions regarding which books to keep on their shelves on the basis of many factors (such as shelf space, copies available, etc.). Perhaps, and maybe this is what is completely unacceptable to you, libraries may even have decided that books which are less popular should not be kept on the shelves in preference to books which are more popular – perhaps due to some ridiculous notion like “public libraries should make more easily available those books the public frequently desire in preference to those books which the public do not typically read”. If you wish to call this “ruthless purging” you may – but again, frankly I think you are trivialising the concept.

As a point of fact, I would note that I can make what is called a “library request” (you may wish to look up the concept, and see if it is possible with respect to your library). This is a procedure by which I can request a specific book to be made available to me via a number of routes – including the interlibrary loan system. This means that if a specific book is not on the shelf at my local library, I can still request and obtain a copy (though admittedly this does involve the effort of making the request, and having to wait for it to be fulfilled – perhaps you consider this unnecessarily onerous?). I can, should the need arise, also get access via my national legal deposit library (I believe other countries have similar institutes) which does in fact keep copies of these books and is obliged to do so.

“Perry Mason mysteries are gone, C.M. Kornbluth is gone, even Gore Vidal is almost gone.”

A brief search tells me copies of “A Perry Mason omnibus” are available in over 266 libraries around the world, including some 250 or so in the US. Searches for “Gore Vidal” and “C.M. Kornbluth” reveal books by these authors are also similarly available (at least in the hundreds, but I´m afraid I got tired of clicking through the lists after a certain point). It would also seem that copies of “If I ran the Zoo” (one of the books you have designated as “censored”) are available in the multiples of thousands – I’m afraid I lacked the inclination to check the geographic distribution, but the first few hundred at least were in the US (other countries included the UK, Australia, New Zealand, after which I stopped checking in the hopes the point is sufficiently made).

So, simply put, you would seem to be factually incorrect.

(as a by the by, even in my incredibly rural and underfunded area there are 4 different Perry Mason mystery books – which is admittedly not the comprehensive catalogue – as well as a copy of “The Space Merchants”, and copies of “The essential Gore Vidal”, “Empire”, “Lincoln”, “Duluth”, etc. All of these are available on shelves in libraries in my area, all without having to even consider requesting books as interlibrary loans. More populous and better funded areas seem to have even more selection available – as, perhaps, one might expect. If you seriously wish to advance the case that these books are gone, or that censorship is rife, perhaps you may wish to consider offering some actual evidence at some point)

“The existence of multiple formats is itself a commercial thing”

The existence of multiple formats within a capitalist system might be, but having multiple formats is not inherently commercial in and of itself – you appear to be confusing the technology for the system.

“Digital is not forever either”

I specifically noted it is not – after all, if nothing else we will be constrained by the likely heat death of the universe. However, in the shorter term there is certainly an interesting discussion to be had regarding digitisation of media (I seem to recall JQ and EH have had posts on these topics), and on regarding the attempts of companies to control all this. I don’t wish to direvt here, but while I am far from sanguine, the existence of mixed tapes/home video – as well as the way many artists have started self-publishing – suggests that such attempts by companies are not guaranteed inevitable success.

“ A change of policy, like selling the library and the movie or song you permanently rented from Amazon is no longer available!”

Yes – if a nation sells its libraries, it will no longer offer the same level of access to books. But that is not an argument for preserving physical copies of books in libraries, it is an argument for preserving libraries.

I also notice your use of “permanently rented”. Interestingly, when I buy music from a retailer (I personally avoid Amazon) I frequently do so in the form of a physical object called a “CD”. As far as I can tell, the only way Amazon (or any company) could subsequently restrict my usage is if they physically come to my house and take it away from me. To the best of my knowledge, we have yet to reach that level of corporate control. Of course, it may be the case that there is a shift to reduce physical copies for that very reason – interestingly, this would then surely become a case where having multiple formats is actually beneficial.

”Of course if you pay all the digital companies, that solves that problem?”

No. I don’t believe I have said anything which would give the impression I would think the answer to this would be yes. Indeed, I believe there are many better ways societies in general could handle (for want of a better term) “IP”. I could go into more detail, but by this point you already seem to have drawn me along on quite the tangent – from “why these 6 books being withdrawn from print is bad” to “digital books are bad” – so I will refrain in the interests of keeping my comment under 4K words.

“the idea that digital is forever but hard copies aren’t, are I believe very mistaken.”

I don´t believe I made that claim. I have responded to the idea you seemed to be advancing: namely that withdrawing physical copies of a book is somehow spelling the deletion of that book and its erasure from history. I believe that that is incorrect, and I gave a number of reasons why this is so (including, but not limited to, the fact that it will continue to exist in digital format as well as in legal deposit libraries, amongst others).

“The case that the hurt requires more needs to be made. The wrongness? Look, when it comes to wrongness, the wrongness that offends prudes and jingoes is most likely going to win more times than not.”

I want to be clear that my following sentence is not intended to be an insult or slight, but rather to try to avoid potential misunderstanding: I´m afraid that I find this word salad so incomprehensible that I am genuinely struggling to understand what you are trying to say.

(Are you trying to imply that the withdrawal of these books from print is a result of public pressure, or that Dr Seuss Enterprises comprises of vociferous supporters of “policy favouring war, especially in the name of patriotism”? I am sure this all makes good sense to you, but while I understand your words I am unsure I have correctly understood your intended meaning. I will proceed, but want to make it clear that if this results in speaking at cross purposes it is not intentional on my part.)

From what I have read, the company made a decision regarding what books it will keep in print based on a consultation (the details of which seem unavailable). As far as I can tell it was not under any particularly significant pressure to withdraw these particular books, nor has it been obliged to by any notable degree (if there was a government edict, certainly I missed it). You might think that the actions by the company are objectionable, but in the first instance it is worth noting the voluntary nature.

The alternative you appear to be proposing is that a publishing company should be forced to keep books in print indefinitely. Even further, given you are advancing the argument for books which “cause hurt”, you seem to be arguing that only books which are considered objectionable should be kept in print indefinitely – but I will assume that this was not your intended implication..

Either way, this seems a somewhat idiosyncratic approach (to be charitable).

There are many possible ways one could easily address “maintaining availability of media” while also “not forcing specific individuals or organisations to act against their wishes”. For example (and I don´t propose this as my preferred solution, but merely to demonstrate there are many potential alternatives) one could simply adapt current policies so that if a publishing company withdraws books from print they enter public domain on a short timescale. Or, alternatively, if you really must require that it is publishing houses specifically who have to keep books in print indefinitely (for whatever arbitrary reason), one could nationalise the publishing industry. Or you could have a system where legal deposit libraries maintain pristine copies of books (I believe they generally do anyway) until such time as copyright has expired, whereupon they become commonly available again. Given that libraries (in my country) frequently pay publishers to keep copies of books on shelves, and if I understand correctly such fees typically include a calculation of the popularity of the book, it seems likely one could envisage a system whereby large numbers of popular books are constantly maintained while the far less popular ones are kept in smaller numbers (but still accessible) until copyright expires. I’m sure there are many better ideas compared to these – these are merely off the top of my head.

Here, I am trying to make the point that there are many ways in which the situation could have been handled – and many which do not involve mandating that people or organisations act against their wishes / consciences / profit margin (delete according to your cynicism). There are many ways the current system could (and should) be improved. I could certainly have a long discussion with an honest interlocutor (which at this point would seem to preclude you) about ways in which the handling of media (and “IP” in general) could be improved. Indeed, I have made rather forceful comments, for example, about my feelings on the academic publishing model and why I think it is terrible.

As I specifically noted in my comment @ 23: I think there is an important discussion to be had about the preservation of media in general. Sadly, given your response here, I think it is clear that it would be fruitless to engage with you further on that topic (or, I can´t help but suspect, any topic at all).

“Endorsing double standards is a bad strategy because they can have double standards too.”

I would hope you can point to where I have endorsed double standards – otherwise this smacks somewhat of poisoning the well.

Final remarks:

Again, I still think you still need to justify “censored”. I take this word seriously, because to me “censored” has certain implications regarding the degree of severity. Perhaps this is due to my personal biases, where censorship meant something a little more…proactive than I have seen here (“tír gan teanga, tír gan anam”, as they say). However, I have also repeatedly asked you to explain what you mean (and you have not done so), so if there is confusion you could have easily cleared it up. Again, please do consider explaining exactly how you think these Seuss books have been censored, and by whom.

I will note that I specifically have not said whether or not I believe the actions in question were “good”, and I have not said that I think this was the best approach (either within the context of the society in which we leave, or within the theoretical “utopian” society I would prefer). What I have said, repeatedly now, is that the situation does not seem to have warranted the reaction it has – and that given similar situations happen all the time but have not provoked similar degrees of outrage, I struggle to see a legitimate reason why this in particular has become such a line in the sand (and can’t help but feel a little sceptical that the responses – such as that by members of the Republican party or the right wing media – are generally prompted by a noble concern for the preservation of literature).

While I certainly support people offering their perspectives (and would never wish to dictate what people prioritise), I would also emphasise again the rhetoric being casually used seems…a bit disproportionate (after all, as I noted with respect to eBay, if one is going to argue a company has overreacted, I can´t help but think throwing out things like “censored” and “contaminates the white child’s mind” should be done with at least an appreciation that there is a certain degree of irony involved). Along these lines, I also must confess to a certain degree of personal irritation when people use terms like “censored” in what seems to me to be a remarkably trivialising way, and state things like “X is gone” when a few seconds of checking would show that it isn’t. I really don´t think this sort of overblown exaggeration is particularly conducive to a sensible discussion (which has been another one of the points I have repeatedly made, and which seems to have been repeatedly ignored).

I certainly think that discussion could be had regarding better approaches to handling data to ensure preservation for people. Indeed, I have specifically said as much on this very thread. I also certainly also think there are many criticisms one can reasonably make regarding the way societies handle artistry (and of capitalist societies in general, for that matter). I also think that censorship is something to take seriously, and I don´t think that prohibiting works on the basis offense is typically a good way for societies to proceed.

On the other hand, I will also note that given people are equating a private company making a decision over which books to keep in print to “another instance of something that educated people in the West are just required to accept uncritically in order not to seem backward and evil”, it seems to me that this demonstrates irrationality is in no short supply.

I am sure that (had I been discussing the topic with someone who isn’t quite so contemptuous and insulting) there are certainly many ways in which an thought-provoking discussion could evolve regarding media in general. The loss of information over time, the intersection of public interest, the frequently coercive nature of creative endeavours, the limitations of public domain, etc. are all interesting and important topics to discuss.

But, given the tone and content of your reply to me, I don’t foresee that any further discussion with you is likely to prove anywhere near that productive, or indeed anything other than deeply unpleasant and frustrating. Should you ever be interested in actual honest discussion (as opposed to tossing insults and trying to strawman me), you can find me in the comments – otherwise, I will look to direct my discussion towards less toxic commentators.