I have probably missed most of the tempest in this particular teacup because I am no longer on Facebook and I've been off twitter lately as well, but I didn't get the impression that this...
I have probably missed most of the tempest in this particular teacup because I am no longer on Facebook and I've been off twitter lately as well, but I didn't get the impression that this "controversy" was being stirred up by "liberals" advocating for banning these Seuss books. My understanding was that conservatives were losing their collective shit because the Seuss estate was electing not to reprint these particular books any more, because of some problematic stereotypes.
I'm having trouble connecting that reality (a private business deciding not to release a product because of potential problems) with the fake reality that conservatives seem to be inventing for themselves (Liberal cancel culture run amok! The left has canceled our beloved children's author!).
The whole thing has seemed to me like an attempt to distract from actual issues, or an attempt to create something out of nothing. It seems to me that conservative media needs a boogeyman to scare and distract it's viewers, and something to get them outraged about to keep them on the hook.
I'm certainly open to being corrected if there's more to this, but it seems like a non-issue to me.
Agreed. Nobody seems to be able to point to any popular campaign to get these books banned. Unfortunately I think "we are being censored" is just a marketable brand now, which is bad both for real...
Agreed. Nobody seems to be able to point to any popular campaign to get these books banned. Unfortunately I think "we are being censored" is just a marketable brand now, which is bad both for real issues we should be focusing on and for genuine victims of suppression who are having their stories diluted by this kind of hystrionics.
Basically the guiding ethos of the majority of Reddit BS too isn't it. Sorry I'm a recovering Redditor and new here, is that kind of talk best kept to myself? (*Gotta follow up here after making...
"we are being censored" is just a marketable brand now
Basically the guiding ethos of the majority of Reddit BS too isn't it. Sorry I'm a recovering Redditor and new here, is that kind of talk best kept to myself?
(*Gotta follow up here after making it to the bottom of the thread, this site is SO MUCH better than Reddit. Just the basic format. Is there some kind of orangered-type notification if I get a reply to a comment? Thanks.)
I won't pretend to be able to speak for the entire tildes community (I'd argue no one here can) but I think you'll find that a lot of people here share your dislike and/or disillusion with Reddit....
Sorry I'm a recovering Redditor and new here, is that kind of talk best kept to myself?
I won't pretend to be able to speak for the entire tildes community (I'd argue no one here can) but I think you'll find that a lot of people here share your dislike and/or disillusion with Reddit. I don't see anything wrong with what you pointed out here. The main pushback you might get is that it is a more productive conversation if you discuss why you feel that is the guiding ethos of Reddit, or how you see those flaws manifest in the community, or suggestions to remedy. But not every comment is required to be a deep and insightful take or needing lots of logic. If I tried to criticize you for it, anyone can go through my comment history and find the countless comments of mine where I am guilty of doing the same thing.
This is my very long winded way of saying "eh, I think its fine" :P
Right thanks. I popped in yesterday and saw that thread for recovering Redditors, and I found tildes through Reddit. My intention in asking if this talk is appropriate was more whether it's...
Right thanks. I popped in yesterday and saw that thread for recovering Redditors, and I found tildes through Reddit. My intention in asking if this talk is appropriate was more whether it's basically a cliché around here now.
To elaborate on what I meant, "free speech" has long been abused as a cover for bigotry on Reddit. I won't get too deep into it but we can look at how long the admins of that site allowed r/The_Donald to crap up most of the entire site with manipulation, brigading, bullying and harassment; and the admins justified it as "valuable discussion" or whatever. It's effectively the same "free speech" argument. And in some of the more meta corners of Reddit, "free speech" as cover for bigotry is considered such a cliché that mentioning freezing the peaches is enough to connote the argument.
(I'm not sure what logical fallacy or rhetorical device would be applied here. A bit of a slippery slope maybe? "If I can't say the N-word, soon we will live in a literal socialist dictatorship!" Yes I'm exaggerating somewhat, for the more reasonable of those making the argument at least.)
*Another meta question: should I note edits? Cause I made a typo.
I think it's more important to leave what you typed and strike it out than to make wholesale edits without noting it. Typos don't count because they aren't generally consequential.
I think it's more important to leave what you typed and strike it out than to make wholesale edits without noting it. Typos don't count because they aren't generally consequential.
And eBay removed all listings of them and many libraries removed them. I've never read any of the books or had any interest in doing so but I can understand if you enjoyed it (like the author of...
My understanding was that conservatives were losing their collective shit because the Seuss estate was electing not to reprint these particular books any more, because of some problematic stereotypes.
And eBay removed all listings of them and many libraries removed them. I've never read any of the books or had any interest in doing so but I can understand if you enjoyed it (like the author of this article did) you'd be annoyed if it became completely inaccessible to you.
(my personal opinion: it's fine for the publisher to stop printing them, but eBay definitely shouldn't ban it)
So I don't have any particular comment on your first link, except to note that it's always struck me as odd how inconsistently conservatives apply their principles of free enterprise. Why is it...
So I don't have any particular comment on your first link, except to note that it's always struck me as odd how inconsistently conservatives apply their principles of free enterprise. Why is it okay for a business to be able to choose, just pulling a random example out of a hat here, which wedding cakes they want to make based on their own private moral code, but it's not okay for a business to decide which books they want to allow on their platform?
Also, if you read that second link the only library system that it mentions as removing the books from circulation (temporarily while the assess the content) is the Chicago Public Library system. It actually specifically mentions three other major library systems that will not be removing them, including New York, Brooklyn, and Denver. So I'm not sure if that equates to "many" libraries removing them. It's possible I'm missing some context but the article in that link certainly doesn't support that assertion.
Also, the Chicago library is only doing so temporarily until it figures out it's response. As for eBay, the article is paywalled for me, but I wonder how much of the ban is just driven by eBay...
Also, the Chicago library is only doing so temporarily until it figures out it's response.
As for eBay, the article is paywalled for me, but I wonder how much of the ban is just driven by eBay looking out for its customers to not get ripped off, as the news of the "ban" causes heaps of copies to go on sale at hugely inflated prices? Like they did with the PS5 earlier.
Not defending the company, just trying to work out if there are other motivations than some conspiracy to ban the book.
See https://archive.is/ZxcpU, definitely not to protect customers from high prices.
how much of the ban is just driven by eBay looking out for its customers to not get ripped off, as the news of the "ban" causes heaps of copies to go on sale at hugely inflated prices? Like they did with the PS5 earlier.
I can't find an explanation of eBay's decision, but every article I can find says something like "eBay said they were removing the books, but hundreds of listings are still up".
Both of those links say that the auction was "ended by the seller because of an error in the listing", and one of the only other examples I could find was a collection of four books (including...
Both of those links say that the auction was "ended by the seller because of an error in the listing", and one of the only other examples I could find was a collection of four books (including Zoo) that was only posted just now and doesn't include "Zoo" in the title.
It definitely seems like they've become hard to find on the site.
Your links are unavailable, I assume caught by ebay. They might be a bit slow to remove some but ebay has definitely banned them. The only explanation I can find from eBay is from WSJ:
Your links are unavailable, I assume caught by ebay. They might be a bit slow to remove some but ebay has definitely banned them. The only explanation I can find from eBay is from WSJ:
“Dr. Seuss Enterprises has stopped publication of this book due to its negative portrayal of some ethnicities,” said the email message from eBay, which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. “As a courtesy, we have ended your item and refunded your selling fees, and as long as you do not relist the item, there will be no negative impact to your account.”
Plenty of controversial items—including Adolf Hitler’s “Mein Kampf” and “The Turner Diaries,” a novel popular with white-supremacist groups—were available on eBay as of Wednesday evening. When asked, the spokeswoman said these two books also fell in the “offensive material” category and would be removed. On Thursday afternoon it appeared that “The Turner Diaries” was no longer available on eBay.
I don't think ebay should be obligated to sell the Dr Seuss books but it really damages their reputation for me, especially as a place to purchase rare or otherwise unavailable items
I don't think ebay should be obligated to sell the Dr Seuss books but it really damages their reputation for me, especially as a place to purchase rare or otherwise unavailable items
When Google or Facebook or some other corporation does something people don’t like, nobody is all that shy about saying that they dislike it. You can disagree with what some businesses are doing...
When Google or Facebook or some other corporation does something people don’t like, nobody is all that shy about saying that they dislike it. You can disagree with what some businesses are doing even if you’re not arguing that it’s illegal or the law should be changed.
It also looks like enough people are on the other side of this for multiple businesses and one library system to take at least symbolic action. That’s not a popular groundswell, but it’s not nothing either.
I have seen a lot of memes about this on Facebook, but I shared this article because it’s not a meme. It’s someone who took the time to write about the books.
You make a good point here, and I do think there are some issues that need reasonable, measured discussion around whether it's better to erase harmful stereotypes from old media, or to preface...
You make a good point here, and I do think there are some issues that need reasonable, measured discussion around whether it's better to erase harmful stereotypes from old media, or to preface them with discussion of the harmful stereotypes and to give them context. The linked article has even has some of what I'd like to see in that discussion. However, the author frames this discussion (talking about "cancelling" and "banning" when I see very little evidence that is what is happening here) in a way that makes me very suspicious that they are not operating in good faith. This "controversy" is, I suspect, being used by right wing media to rile up and distract their base.
For example, the author uses this link: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/3/6/22316983/dr-seuss-chicago-public-library-racist-imagery-circulation as support that "libraries [are] remove[ing] the books from their shelves", but the actual article is only reporting about the actions of a single library system, and from the text in the linked article it is not ever stated that the books are being permanently banned or removed from shelves.
The Chicago Public Library system will temporarily remove several Dr. Seuss books with racist and insensitive imagery from its shelves as it assesses its long-term plan for the collection, a spokesperson said Saturday.
This makes me think that the author has an agenda, and they are not particularly concerned with dealing honestly with evidence. That article is linked in the midst of a compliant about the ALA not adding these books to their list of banned books, but from what I can see from the author's own link, it seems to be because they aren't being widely banned, at least not yet...
The article just smells of concern trolling to me. I think a better, more honest way of dealing with what might be genuine concerns of balancing the preservation of historical context with sensitivity toward minority groups harmed by stereotypical portrayals would be to, maybe, include some of those minority voices when talking about the particular stereotypes, and dealing honestly with evidence when trying to show what is being done with works that you are concerned with preserving. I do think there is a conversation to be had, here, but I don't think this author is actually concerned with having it.
Some of the arguments in the blog post could be considered the sort of arguments that a concern troll might use, if you're inclined to be suspicious. But I think he's quite sincere. This writer is...
Some of the arguments in the blog post could be considered the sort of arguments that a concern troll might use, if you're inclined to be suspicious. But I think he's quite sincere.
This writer is new to me and I was a bit suspicious too. But after looking at his Twitter account and some of the substack articles that weren't paywalled, I think he really does like old cartoons. His avatar is from Calvin and Hobbes and he ends each substack post with a description of a classic animated short.
Also, one part of the blog post is about how much he likes and recommends one of the controversial Dr. Seuss books, which isn't a concern-trolling sort of argument at all.
From yours and other comments here, it seems he got some facts wrong, though. I didn't check into it myself.
Biden's administration removed Seuss books from the WH reading program, libraries across the country started pulling them, and eBay won't allow them to be resold. All of these things plus removing...
Biden's administration removed Seuss books from the WH reading program, libraries across the country started pulling them, and eBay won't allow them to be resold. All of these things plus removing them from print happened within days of each other. So people don't like the look of it. It looks like a coordinated censorship effort.
Some conservatives are definitely hypocrites here, but at the same time, you can criticize something without advocating the government step in to correct it. That's part of the free market anyway. Just because you're pro-free market doesn't mean you agree with everything every company does. I get this all the time as a libertarian when I criticize companies for their policies. For example, of course Facebook has the right to do what they want on their platform, but I'm still gonna call out shitty policy.
Also something I see happening a lot is that people will call something like this censorship and people on the left will respond with something along the lines of "they're private, they can do what they want!" Which is true. But censorship as a concept can happen outside of government interference. A private company banning something is still technically censorship. Doesn't mean it's illegal, of course.
This seems to be mostly false, from what I can find, unless you're talking about something other than the Read Across America Day comments. Also, the National Education Association ended its...
Biden's administration removed Seuss books from the WH reading program
This seems to be mostly false, from what I can find, unless you're talking about something other than the Read Across America Day comments. Also, the National Education Association ended its partnership with the Seuss foundation in 2017 which would have been under the Trump admin.
libraries across the country started pulling them
Do you have a source for this? Because the only articles I have seen for this have all been about one particular library system. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just haven't seen the evidence.
eBay won't allow them to be resold
I'm not sure what to say about this one. I have seen that eBay was removing listings at one point, but I also saw elsewhere in the thread that there are still lots of listings for these books on eBay.
All of these things plus removing them from print happened within days of each other.
My understanding is that the removal from print, by the estate of Seuss, happened first. Then, there was the conservative hand-wringing, then the backlash to all the conservative "Dr. Seuss got cancelled" hot-takes. I'm not going to argue that there weren't some stupid takes on the left on Twitter, or that some people somewhere didn't overreact (that would be an idiotic bet to take), but from what little I've seen this whole thing has been a manufactured controversy from the start.
And I agree with you that it's fine to call out companies on their shitty policies, no argument there. But conservatives have built "cancel culture" into some weird straw-man/monster that is going around "censoring" people and companies for having opposing ideologies, and ruining their lives merely because they disagree. It's the latest conservative media boogeyman, so I am increasingly greeting any story framed in that way with skepticism. Which is a real shame, because I think there are real conversations to be had about social media mobs and how they can harm people who have made honest mistakes, or who might otherwise change their minds/behaviors. But it's difficult to have those conversations because of the media distortion around those topics.
Hey thanks for this. Gave me some good info here. I'm not a conservative that's been decrying all this stuff. Just going off what I heard and have read here and there. I hadn't known the move to...
Hey thanks for this. Gave me some good info here. I'm not a conservative that's been decrying all this stuff. Just going off what I heard and have read here and there. I hadn't known the move to untie the reading program from Seuss started in 2017.
I agree conservatives have been super reactionary lately to this kind of thing. It hurts a lot of causes and it annoys me specifically because when I bring up some concerns about some of this stuff, I'm quickly labeled as a Republican or conservative.
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about you, but when the position you held is taken over by conservatives, it seems reasonable for people start thinking you're a conservative for holding what had...
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about you, but when the position you held is taken over by conservatives, it seems reasonable for people start thinking you're a conservative for holding what had been an entirely separate position. You're saying the same things that conservatives are saying, after all.
That's part of what I like about Tildes being small enough I can identify individual people. I can have more long-term context for what you say than dealing with your comment in a vacuum and identifying you as part of a group based on this one thing you've said.
I get why people do it. It's just frustrating as someone who doesn't fit into the two party crap at all. But yeah. Smaller sites like this are definitely better at promoting more honest...
I get why people do it. It's just frustrating as someone who doesn't fit into the two party crap at all. But yeah. Smaller sites like this are definitely better at promoting more honest conversation and debate.
EDIT: I did a very short comment, but @TheRtRevKaiser made a much more in depth and sourced comment than me, everyone check that one out instead of me. Biden didn't mention Dr. Seuss directly in...
EDIT: I did a very short comment, but @TheRtRevKaiser made a much more in depth and sourced comment than me, everyone check that one out instead of me.
Biden's administration removed Seuss books from the WH reading program
Biden didn't mention Dr. Seuss directly in his speech, a tradition started in 2008 by Obama, 20 years after the creation of the event. And the reason the NEA gives for why they removed reference to Dr Seuss is because they are no longer partnered with the Seuss estate and they don't want to only promote one author. source. I am unable to find any other articles about separate things the admin has done to "erase" Seuss as articles have been putting it.
As others discuss in this thread, I am unable to find any libraries other than the Chicago Public Library removing the books, and even then they said they are only doing it temporarily while they discuss what they think they should do.
For the ebay point, as @burkman points out in their comment (and that matches my attempted search) it seems difficult to find a source that has ebay explain the decision, and they are still listed online. If you've got one I'm open to reading it and editing my comment accordingly.
Here's my thoughts about the four things you listed in the first paragraph. Books removed from print From what I can tell, it was an action the publisher took on their own without any outside...
Here's my thoughts about the four things you listed in the first paragraph.
Books removed from print
From what I can tell, it was an action the publisher took on their own without any outside pressure. Sure you could view it as censorship, but if so it's self-censorship. I think what is more likely is that they believed that not printing and selling these books would generally be seen as a positive and would somewhat clean up the image of Dr. Seuss, thereby making them more money in the future.
Libraries removing the books from their shelves
The article linked only says that they were temporarily removed from the shelves while they assess them at a single library. I haven't been able to find mentions of other libraries removing the books (other than someone on reddit claiming they're a librarian who pulled the books temporarily because people were stealing them). Also, this is anecdotal and not really strong evidence either way, but I was curious and looked at the catalog for my local library just to see where they stood and five of the six books are available (I don't think they had a copy of the sixth to begin with).
Books removed from the White House reading list
With the books no longer in print it will likely be more difficult for school to get their hands on them. I couldn't find a page for the reading program/list of books (if you have a link to it I'd appreciate it) so I don't know for sure that the lower availability of the books was part of the decision (knowing if does or doesn't have other out of print books would make it clearer), but it would make sense to me as a good reason to remove them.
eBay removed listings for the books
This is the only one I really take issue with. There are clearly issues with these books, but as far as I can tell there's nothing so outrageously bad in them that would warrant a complete ban. There are much worse things available on eBay that aren't taken down. I think that eBay likely saw that there were a lot of people talking about this and viewed it as an easy way to get some good press (or at least get their name in the press) without much effort.
I appreciate the links to the ebay actions. I've seen some removed around the time all this started so it seemed consistent but as far as I know, ebay hasn't issued a statement on it or anything....
I appreciate the links to the ebay actions. I've seen some removed around the time all this started so it seemed consistent but as far as I know, ebay hasn't issued a statement on it or anything.
I agree the libraries one is more anecdotal. There's no mandate from above for libraries to do this and I wasn't trying to claim there was. There's certainly no epidemic of them being pulled from all libraries across the US. But when it happens even as a one-off, it makes the news and people who are worried about this stuff see it as censorship.
As for the books being removed from print - yes, it's self-censorship. Yes, they're allowed to do it. But people can also criticize it. This one I blame on our messed up copyright system though. If our system was sane, some Dr. Seuss books might have lost copyright status a while ago and they'd be free to be reprinted by other people besides his estate.
I agree that it's an issue. Life of the author plus 70 years is way too long. In the next year or so there'll probably be another push by Disney to extend it yet again (the copyright on Mickey...
This one I blame on our messed up copyright system though. If our system was sane, some Dr. Seuss books might have lost copyright status a while ago and they'd be free to be reprinted by other people besides his estate.
I agree that it's an issue. Life of the author plus 70 years is way too long. In the next year or so there'll probably be another push by Disney to extend it yet again (the copyright on Mickey Mouse expires in 2024).
I've spent almost an hour trying to write a response to this but in the end I think I need to ask more questions and make sure I know your stance and am not arguing the spectre of an opinion I've...
As for the books being removed from print - yes, it's self-censorship. Yes, they're allowed to do it. But people can also criticize it.
I've spent almost an hour trying to write a response to this but in the end I think I need to ask more questions and make sure I know your stance and am not arguing the spectre of an opinion I've made in my head. What part of the Seuss books being pulled from print makes it censorship? What ways could these works have been pulled from print that you would not consider censorship?
Two days later and here's the status of those five listings one was sold two don't show up at all two show the message "This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the...
Two days later and here's the status of those five listings
one was sold
two don't show up at all
two show the message "This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing."
So it does seem to me that they are removing listings, but some are getting through.
I assume they're using some combination of flagged keywords and user reports to find and remove listings.
The listing that was sold was titled "Eggs Dr Seuss Super" and the same account now has a listing for the Mulberry Street book with the title "Dr Seuss Mulberrry Str33t".
I have not followed the issue at all, this article has been my first foray into it - although technically my partners mom wanted to gripe about it last weekend at lunch for some reason. After...
I have not followed the issue at all, this article has been my first foray into it - although technically my partners mom wanted to gripe about it last weekend at lunch for some reason. After going through the article, I got the impression that the author was making the point that an "effective banning that is currently happening due to 'Big Tech' not allowing their customers to sell the 'banned books'" should not be considered any different than the US Government refusing the stock the very same book(s) in the Libraries. In either way the books in question are not widely available to the general public, so why make the distinction between the 'private' banning and 'public' banning.
Now due to my inadequate research on the subject matter, I have no idea if what the author is stating is true or not. I don't know if Amazon is preventing smaller book resellers from selling the "banned books" through the Amazon web platform, so I can't comment on that.
As for my opinion on the matter: ehhhhhh, it's kinda in between the two extremes honestly. My "intellectual rage" isn't stoked at the thought of a company deciding to stop printing a couple books. At the same time, others have different priorities than I do, ya know?. Were I to come across a racist depiction with my future children somewhere in the future, I would make sure to talk to them and explain why this "looks or sounds that way"; I consider it my job to raise thoughtful, empathetic, well-rounded kids, and times like this are educational.
At the same time, that doesn't acknowledge the other side of the issue; I'm not a part of the demographic that's being depicted in the work. That's a whole different story and argument to be made there, on which I don't think I have the experience to begin. So I'll defer to someone else who has experience with that situation.
That's all fairly reasonable but as one of the top comments said, this mainly a controversy manufactured by Fox News etc to distract from real issues. Expect to see a lot of talk about the...
That's all fairly reasonable but as one of the top comments said, this mainly a controversy manufactured by Fox News etc to distract from real issues. Expect to see a lot of talk about the 'immigration crisis' along the same lines in the near future. I take issue with your apparent claim that private companies are obligated to uphold freedom of speech on their platforms in the same way that the US government is in public.
As for the facts regarding the author's claim about that, the comment above you linked to an article saying EBay had removed the books. With due respect, EBay removed the books? Who cares.
Seems like I missed that, it certainly does sound like a whole bunch of "Moral Saber Rattling" on their part. That's actually kind of the opposite point I was trying to make, at least for my own...
That's all fairly reasonable but as one of the top comments said, this mainly a controversy manufactured by Fox News etc to distract from real issues. Expect to see a lot of talk about the 'immigration crisis' along the same lines in the near future.
Seems like I missed that, it certainly does sound like a whole bunch of "Moral Saber Rattling" on their part.
I take issue with your apparent claim that private companies are obligated to uphold freedom of speech on their platforms in the same way that the US government is in public.
That's actually kind of the opposite point I was trying to make, at least for my own opinion. I might not have been as clear as I wanted in the description [1] so I'll try again below [2].
[1]
After going through the article, I got the impression that the author was making the point that an "effective banning that is currently happening due to 'Big Tech' not allowing their customers to sell the 'banned books'" should not be considered any different than the US Government refusing the stock the very same book(s) in the Libraries. In either way the books in question are not widely available to the general public, so why make the distinction between the 'private' banning and 'public' banning.
[2]
My quote was intended to try and reduce the authors point in the article to a simpler, more manageable statement - the statement ultimately coming down to: "Government or Private (Big Tech) Business, doesn't matter who's doing the banning. It should still be considered book banning since the end result is the same." I personally don't care whether companies choose to allow sale of the books or not, I don't have a horse in this race. I was trying to provide clarity to the core ideas stated in the linked article.
While writing this, it occured to me that I never mentioned Ebay in my post. Did you mean to post this as a reply to@p4t44 ?
No sorry I mentioned EBay because I misinterpreted the first quote of yours [1] as mostly your own thoughts, not you paraphrasing the author. I thought EBay was the only major platform that...
No sorry I mentioned EBay because I misinterpreted the first quote of yours [1] as mostly your own thoughts, not you paraphrasing the author. I thought EBay was the only major platform that removed the books but maybe I was again mistaken. It mostly seems like I should lurk more.
That's quite alright, no offense taken or harm done! I mean ultimately that's up to you, but I don't believe you should sequester yourself from "public interaction" simply because of a misreading....
That's quite alright, no offense taken or harm done!
It mostly seems like I should lurk more.
I mean ultimately that's up to you, but I don't believe you should sequester yourself from "public interaction" simply because of a misreading. Mistakes happen, ya know - that's part of the process :)
The central conceit of this article is off base. A book going out of print isn't being "forbidden." Books go out of print all the time when the publishers decide there is no longer any commercial...
Exemplary
The central conceit of this article is off base. A book going out of print isn't being "forbidden." Books go out of print all the time when the publishers decide there is no longer any commercial or cultural value in continuing to print it. If you ask very nicely I'm sure they'll allow you to pay a licensing fee and reproduce a copy, at your own expense for your own use, if it really matters to you.
The author, generally, wants to argue that they shouldn't be shamed for liking a work with racist stuff in it for non-racist reasons. I get that, but even if I agree in general--that the contemporary insistence on allowing all the whiniest and thinnest skinned people on the planet to exercise veto power on what does and doesn't get regarded as worthwhile and appropriate content for everyone else--this doesn't seem like the hill to die on because the controversy exhibits the same impulse from the other side. Extremely thin skinned conservatives are getting mad about the estate for deciding not to continue printing books that they don't see commercial or artistic merit in. People have a right to not print books if they don't want to. You can't compel speech from the Geisel Estate and insist that them refusing to continue making that speech constitutes canceling. If anyone gets to speak for what the Dr. Seuss legacy ought to stand for I would think it would be his own estate wouldn't it!?
As others have argued already, the real problem here is copyright law. Books published so long ago should be out of copyright by now. So, no, I don't think the estate should have any say in this....
As others have argued already, the real problem here is copyright law. Books published so long ago should be out of copyright by now. So, no, I don't think the estate should have any say in this.
But, since they do, there's still an argument about whether they made the right decision. Someone exercising a legal right can still be criticized.
Criticized for what though? For not wanting to continue putting money into printing something without commercial value to them or cultural merit in their opinion? Why would anyone be obligated to...
Criticized for what though? For not wanting to continue putting money into printing something without commercial value to them or cultural merit in their opinion? Why would anyone be obligated to keep saying things they no longer want to say? I don't think "fans" should have any say in what a 'content creator' produces. That seems WAY more dystopian of a norm to push than fears of overstepping on cancellation.
The basic dynamic seems pretty normal to me. By analogy, sometimes TV shows get cancelled, fans complain, and sometimes the network changes their minds and they get another season due to fan...
The basic dynamic seems pretty normal to me. By analogy, sometimes TV shows get cancelled, fans complain, and sometimes the network changes their minds and they get another season due to fan interest. This seems like a pretty normal part of fan culture, and not particularly dystopian? Enough people complain, and maybe the people in charge of the estate will change their minds. Then people will buy more Dr. Seuss books. (Censorship controversies tend to be good for business, too. Bookstores can put the books on their "banned books" shelf and sell more books.)
Though, at the same time, censorship and anti-censorship issues have become a political football and so, everyone arguing about this can be reasonably suspected of having an ulterior motive, or at least mixed motives.
It wouldn't have as much of a chance to become a big controversy if Dr. Seuss books weren't so popular and well-liked. From an epidemiology point of view, people are susceptible to memes and inclined to reshare them (and we are inclined to debate it here) because they care about the books as well as the politics.
The difference is that fans usually complain because they loved the work. Their arguments for why it shouldn't be taken out of circulation revolve around asserting the work's continuing relevance,...
This seems like a pretty normal part of fan culture, and not particularly dystopian? Enough people complain, and maybe the people in charge of the estate will change their minds.
The difference is that fans usually complain because they loved the work. Their arguments for why it shouldn't be taken out of circulation revolve around asserting the work's continuing relevance, cultural importance, or commercial potential.
The Seuss controversy doesn't have that. Most of the people arguing about it don't even care about the books in question because they're already the least popular Seuss books. It's framed entirely around opposing the very idea that racial sensitivity concerns should motivate decisions around what isn't worth producing. Functionally this constitutes an argument for compelled speech, forcing a publisher to continue standing by something that they do not stand for. It's not a mere disagreement with a publisher's business decision about what's worth publishing.
Even framing it as "Dr. Seuss is being cancelled" is a bad faith framing being put out by conservative media to farm outrage. It's not Dr. Seuss, it's a small set of Dr. Seuss' most problematic works that even he probably wouldn't be proud of if he were still alive to talk about them. The guy was manic depressive from before that mental health treatments were common. He had done a LOT of work that he didn't want shared because it reflected darker sides to his personality.
You seem committed to the notion that it’s all bad faith, but I don’t think it’s warranted, particularly in response to an article by someone who actually does love some of these books. You also...
You seem committed to the notion that it’s all bad faith, but I don’t think it’s warranted, particularly in response to an article by someone who actually does love some of these books.
You also seem committed to the notion that the books that they discontinued are all problematic, but, looking at the pictures in the article, it looks like only one picture in one book really merits that?
The unpublished art wasn’t published. It’s not what people remember from childhood.
Good thing nobody's burning them then so he can still read them. Again, the books aren't being destroyed they're simply going out of print. It's no more "forbidden" than Amazing Fantasy #15 is and...
You seem committed to the notion that it’s all bad faith, but I don’t think it’s warranted, particularly in response to an article by someone who actually does love some of these books.
Good thing nobody's burning them then so he can still read them. Again, the books aren't being destroyed they're simply going out of print. It's no more "forbidden" than Amazing Fantasy #15 is and people have no more right to force it to remain in print than they have to force Marvel to reprint back issues.
You also seem committed to the notion that the books that they discontinued are all problematic, but, looking at the pictures in the article, it looks like only one picture in one book really merits that?
Why should it matter? In the eyes of the Geisel estate that's one picture too many to be worth continuing to print it.
The unpublished art wasn’t published. It’s not what people remember from childhood.
Honestly the insistence that every bit of ephemera from our childhoods should be preserved in amber, in perpetuity, strikes me as an immature and narcissistic demand to make of the world. Times change and an important part of maturity is learning to change with them and let the past go.
I think the author does make a bit too much of it, but where do you get the idea that he wants to "force" these books to be reprinted? People can argue, even strongly, that they should be...
I think the author does make a bit too much of it, but where do you get the idea that he wants to "force" these books to be reprinted? People can argue, even strongly, that they should be reprinted without it being an argument about the use of force.
I’m really not sure what the author wants... only what they don’t like. Do they want the government to tell businesses what they can and can’t sell? That seems like a terrible idea on its face......
I’m really not sure what the author wants... only what they don’t like.
Do they want the government to tell businesses what they can and can’t sell? That seems like a terrible idea on its face...
Do they want libraries to be forced to carry particular books? Well at least you’re not adrift in a sea of legal nonsense anymore... but I imagine that you’d have better luck making an endowment to your local branch, and working with them to make all parties happy.
Do they want internet mobs to stop being so mob-like? Ok, I guess... but saying “please stop shaming ____” to the faceless, anonymous mob that is the Internet is spitting into the wind. Maybe talk about ways to humanize interactions on the web, and systematically de-emphasize discord as a growth strategy?
I shared it because it’s a more personal statement from someone who read and liked some of these books and wanted to argue in their favor. There are plenty of people sharing angry memes or arguing...
I shared it because it’s a more personal statement from someone who read and liked some of these books and wanted to argue in their favor. There are plenty of people sharing angry memes or arguing about censorship in general.
I read most of the books in question as a kid and a few of them (On Beyond Zebra, If I Ran the Zoo) were among my favorite Dr Seuss books. While the degree of "offense" varies from case to case,...
I read most of the books in question as a kid and a few of them (On Beyond Zebra, If I Ran the Zoo) were among my favorite Dr Seuss books. While the degree of "offense" varies from case to case, there are definitely some illustrations here that I wouldn't love to show my future kids. (And we should hold material aimed at children to the highest standard for what we'll tolerate when it comes to objectionable content.)
That being said, my perception is that the offending art is largely incidental to the works themselves—the books are not premised on outdated or racist concepts, but they do feature art with stereotypical and offensive depictions of various groups. (A counterexample might be Tin-Tin in the Congo, which I'd say is not salvageable.) I hope that a few years down the line, the Seuss folks might re-issue these books with some sort of introductory note, updated art where necessary, or both. I have a feeling that the kids of tomorrow won't mind the difference, and I think it's probably a healthy exercise in a time where there's a lot of anxiety around "cancel culture" and "is it still okay to this music / like this actor / etc.?"
There was definitely an effort in conservative media circles to frame this as "Dr Seuss is being canceled!" but I don't think that's ever been anyone's intention—I think choice to selectively discontinue these books is an example of how we can be more nuanced than all-or-nothing value judgments on the entire body of work (or the author).
To take a step back from the rest of the online debate and talk about what I think is an absurd argument by the author. An argument he makes over and over again is that we can't erase things. He...
To take a step back from the rest of the online debate and talk about what I think is an absurd argument by the author. An argument he makes over and over again is that we can't erase things. He gives different reasons for it (an emotional appeal of "the work is someone's favorite" to "if we hide them, we can't learn from them") but they boil down to "these things should not leave circulation". Which is just a stance I find a bit short-sighted. Is there going to be a call to bring the Steven King book "Rage" back into print? Where do we draw the line for what works someone likes enough to deserve to be enshrined in history forever. Should we do this with all TV and film? All music? All pieces of art that any person publishes, has published, or will publish? I don't know where the author would draw the line, if anywhere, to determine what should and shouldn't be available forever. And if the answer is "everything" then I have so many follow up questions. Where do we store these pieces of art forever? How do we ensure we have backups so nothing is ever lost? Do we need to audit to make sure works are never edited or lost? Who does that? Who is in charge of these backups? Is this only US works? English speaking works? All art in the world? How do non-digital works get added to the global art history? Who is responsible for any aspect of this? A single country? A private company? The UN? Video games are an art. Does that mean we need to keep playable versions of every game that is ever released around so they aren't lost? If so, who is in charge of continually making sure that there exists an emulator or some method of playing all those games as technology advances and breaks shit like the new apple silicon did? What if an artist doesnt want their art around anymore.
The idea that everything needs to be permanent is such a weird and new thing. Time is the ultimate filter of art and has been for all of human history prior to the internet and will continue to do so. If the Seuss books end up back in print, they will eventually cease to be profitable and then they will stop being printed again. It will happen.
Yes, public libraries, especially small community ones, have limited shelf space and it's the librarians' job to manage that by buying new books and culling old ones. (Though, mostly they try not...
Yes, public libraries, especially small community ones, have limited shelf space and it's the librarians' job to manage that by buying new books and culling old ones. (Though, mostly they try not to inject their political opinions into the buying process. Ideally, anyway.)
This is quite different from the research libraries that store huge amounts of books just in case some researcher might want to look at them someday. Even they have limits, though.
So yes, there's always some curation going on. But you can still make specific arguments that particular books are good and should be kept and read, and, in part, this blog post was about that.
Libraries and bookstores do sometimes hold events or do other advocacy that's generically anti-censorship, though. In light of their role as curators, this should probably be interpreted as advocating for their power to make their own curation decisions, rather than having them made by outsiders.
I have probably missed most of the tempest in this particular teacup because I am no longer on Facebook and I've been off twitter lately as well, but I didn't get the impression that this "controversy" was being stirred up by "liberals" advocating for banning these Seuss books. My understanding was that conservatives were losing their collective shit because the Seuss estate was electing not to reprint these particular books any more, because of some problematic stereotypes.
I'm having trouble connecting that reality (a private business deciding not to release a product because of potential problems) with the fake reality that conservatives seem to be inventing for themselves (Liberal cancel culture run amok! The left has canceled our beloved children's author!).
The whole thing has seemed to me like an attempt to distract from actual issues, or an attempt to create something out of nothing. It seems to me that conservative media needs a boogeyman to scare and distract it's viewers, and something to get them outraged about to keep them on the hook.
I'm certainly open to being corrected if there's more to this, but it seems like a non-issue to me.
Agreed. Nobody seems to be able to point to any popular campaign to get these books banned. Unfortunately I think "we are being censored" is just a marketable brand now, which is bad both for real issues we should be focusing on and for genuine victims of suppression who are having their stories diluted by this kind of hystrionics.
Basically the guiding ethos of the majority of Reddit BS too isn't it. Sorry I'm a recovering Redditor and new here, is that kind of talk best kept to myself?
(*Gotta follow up here after making it to the bottom of the thread, this site is SO MUCH better than Reddit. Just the basic format. Is there some kind of orangered-type notification if I get a reply to a comment? Thanks.)
I won't pretend to be able to speak for the entire tildes community (I'd argue no one here can) but I think you'll find that a lot of people here share your dislike and/or disillusion with Reddit. I don't see anything wrong with what you pointed out here. The main pushback you might get is that it is a more productive conversation if you discuss why you feel that is the guiding ethos of Reddit, or how you see those flaws manifest in the community, or suggestions to remedy. But not every comment is required to be a deep and insightful take or needing lots of logic. If I tried to criticize you for it, anyone can go through my comment history and find the countless comments of mine where I am guilty of doing the same thing.
This is my very long winded way of saying "eh, I think its fine" :P
Right thanks. I popped in yesterday and saw that thread for recovering Redditors, and I found tildes through Reddit. My intention in asking if this talk is appropriate was more whether it's basically a cliché around here now.
To elaborate on what I meant, "free speech" has long been abused as a cover for bigotry on Reddit. I won't get too deep into it but we can look at how long the admins of that site allowed r/The_Donald to crap up most of the entire site with manipulation, brigading, bullying and harassment; and the admins justified it as "valuable discussion" or whatever. It's effectively the same "free speech" argument. And in some of the more meta corners of Reddit, "free speech" as cover for bigotry is considered such a cliché that mentioning freezing the peaches is enough to connote the argument.
(I'm not sure what logical fallacy or rhetorical device would be applied here. A bit of a slippery slope maybe? "If I can't say the N-word, soon we will live in a literal socialist dictatorship!" Yes I'm exaggerating somewhat, for the more reasonable of those making the argument at least.)
*Another meta question: should I note edits? Cause I made a typo.
To me, typo edits don't need a note, as it's just noise. Substantial edits should probably have one, especially if anyone has replied to you.
I think it's more important to leave what you typed and strike it out than to make wholesale edits without noting it. Typos don't count because they aren't generally consequential.
Yes there is, check over by the sidebar in the upper right corner.
BUT HOW WILL THEY SEE THE NOTIFICATION TO KNOW YOU TOLD THEM WHERE TO LOOK.
Haha! I got it but thanks for looking out.
I'm going to reply so you see the reply notification yourself.
And eBay removed all listings of them and many libraries removed them. I've never read any of the books or had any interest in doing so but I can understand if you enjoyed it (like the author of this article did) you'd be annoyed if it became completely inaccessible to you.
(my personal opinion: it's fine for the publisher to stop printing them, but eBay definitely shouldn't ban it)
So I don't have any particular comment on your first link, except to note that it's always struck me as odd how inconsistently conservatives apply their principles of free enterprise. Why is it okay for a business to be able to choose, just pulling a random example out of a hat here, which wedding cakes they want to make based on their own private moral code, but it's not okay for a business to decide which books they want to allow on their platform?
Also, if you read that second link the only library system that it mentions as removing the books from circulation (temporarily while the assess the content) is the Chicago Public Library system. It actually specifically mentions three other major library systems that will not be removing them, including New York, Brooklyn, and Denver. So I'm not sure if that equates to "many" libraries removing them. It's possible I'm missing some context but the article in that link certainly doesn't support that assertion.
Also, the Chicago library is only doing so temporarily until it figures out it's response.
As for eBay, the article is paywalled for me, but I wonder how much of the ban is just driven by eBay looking out for its customers to not get ripped off, as the news of the "ban" causes heaps of copies to go on sale at hugely inflated prices? Like they did with the PS5 earlier.
Not defending the company, just trying to work out if there are other motivations than some conspiracy to ban the book.
See https://archive.is/ZxcpU, definitely not to protect customers from high prices.
Only one library in that article removed the books (temporarily), and eBay has not banned them (https://www.ebay.com/itm/RAN-THE-ZOO-CHILDRENS-BOOK-RANDOM-HOUSE-NEW-YORK-VINTAGE-HARDCOVER-BOOK/233933309198?hash=item367783050e:g:HNAAAOSwUIhgUgOE, https://www.ebay.com/itm/Dr-Suess-Book-Renewed-Copyright-1974/133696411712?hash=item1f20ed5840:g:sZQAAOSw2z9gURYF, easy to find more).
I can't find an explanation of eBay's decision, but every article I can find says something like "eBay said they were removing the books, but hundreds of listings are still up".
Both of those links say that the auction was "ended by the seller because of an error in the listing", and one of the only other examples I could find was a collection of four books (including Zoo) that was only posted just now and doesn't include "Zoo" in the title.
It definitely seems like they've become hard to find on the site.
Your links are unavailable, I assume caught by ebay. They might be a bit slow to remove some but ebay has definitely banned them. The only explanation I can find from eBay is from WSJ:
Do you think the big internet platforms are generally obligated to platform bigotry?
I don't think ebay should be obligated to sell the Dr Seuss books but it really damages their reputation for me, especially as a place to purchase rare or otherwise unavailable items
When Google or Facebook or some other corporation does something people don’t like, nobody is all that shy about saying that they dislike it. You can disagree with what some businesses are doing even if you’re not arguing that it’s illegal or the law should be changed.
It also looks like enough people are on the other side of this for multiple businesses and one library system to take at least symbolic action. That’s not a popular groundswell, but it’s not nothing either.
I have seen a lot of memes about this on Facebook, but I shared this article because it’s not a meme. It’s someone who took the time to write about the books.
You make a good point here, and I do think there are some issues that need reasonable, measured discussion around whether it's better to erase harmful stereotypes from old media, or to preface them with discussion of the harmful stereotypes and to give them context. The linked article has even has some of what I'd like to see in that discussion. However, the author frames this discussion (talking about "cancelling" and "banning" when I see very little evidence that is what is happening here) in a way that makes me very suspicious that they are not operating in good faith. This "controversy" is, I suspect, being used by right wing media to rile up and distract their base.
For example, the author uses this link: https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/3/6/22316983/dr-seuss-chicago-public-library-racist-imagery-circulation as support that "libraries [are] remove[ing] the books from their shelves", but the actual article is only reporting about the actions of a single library system, and from the text in the linked article it is not ever stated that the books are being permanently banned or removed from shelves.
The article just smells of concern trolling to me. I think a better, more honest way of dealing with what might be genuine concerns of balancing the preservation of historical context with sensitivity toward minority groups harmed by stereotypical portrayals would be to, maybe, include some of those minority voices when talking about the particular stereotypes, and dealing honestly with evidence when trying to show what is being done with works that you are concerned with preserving. I do think there is a conversation to be had, here, but I don't think this author is actually concerned with having it.
Some of the arguments in the blog post could be considered the sort of arguments that a concern troll might use, if you're inclined to be suspicious. But I think he's quite sincere.
This writer is new to me and I was a bit suspicious too. But after looking at his Twitter account and some of the substack articles that weren't paywalled, I think he really does like old cartoons. His avatar is from Calvin and Hobbes and he ends each substack post with a description of a classic animated short.
Also, one part of the blog post is about how much he likes and recommends one of the controversial Dr. Seuss books, which isn't a concern-trolling sort of argument at all.
From yours and other comments here, it seems he got some facts wrong, though. I didn't check into it myself.
Biden's administration removed Seuss books from the WH reading program, libraries across the country started pulling them, and eBay won't allow them to be resold. All of these things plus removing them from print happened within days of each other. So people don't like the look of it. It looks like a coordinated censorship effort.
Some conservatives are definitely hypocrites here, but at the same time, you can criticize something without advocating the government step in to correct it. That's part of the free market anyway. Just because you're pro-free market doesn't mean you agree with everything every company does. I get this all the time as a libertarian when I criticize companies for their policies. For example, of course Facebook has the right to do what they want on their platform, but I'm still gonna call out shitty policy.
Also something I see happening a lot is that people will call something like this censorship and people on the left will respond with something along the lines of "they're private, they can do what they want!" Which is true. But censorship as a concept can happen outside of government interference. A private company banning something is still technically censorship. Doesn't mean it's illegal, of course.
This seems to be mostly false, from what I can find, unless you're talking about something other than the Read Across America Day comments. Also, the National Education Association ended its partnership with the Seuss foundation in 2017 which would have been under the Trump admin.
Do you have a source for this? Because the only articles I have seen for this have all been about one particular library system. I'm not saying it hasn't happened, I just haven't seen the evidence.
I'm not sure what to say about this one. I have seen that eBay was removing listings at one point, but I also saw elsewhere in the thread that there are still lots of listings for these books on eBay.
My understanding is that the removal from print, by the estate of Seuss, happened first. Then, there was the conservative hand-wringing, then the backlash to all the conservative "Dr. Seuss got cancelled" hot-takes. I'm not going to argue that there weren't some stupid takes on the left on Twitter, or that some people somewhere didn't overreact (that would be an idiotic bet to take), but from what little I've seen this whole thing has been a manufactured controversy from the start.
And I agree with you that it's fine to call out companies on their shitty policies, no argument there. But conservatives have built "cancel culture" into some weird straw-man/monster that is going around "censoring" people and companies for having opposing ideologies, and ruining their lives merely because they disagree. It's the latest conservative media boogeyman, so I am increasingly greeting any story framed in that way with skepticism. Which is a real shame, because I think there are real conversations to be had about social media mobs and how they can harm people who have made honest mistakes, or who might otherwise change their minds/behaviors. But it's difficult to have those conversations because of the media distortion around those topics.
Hey thanks for this. Gave me some good info here. I'm not a conservative that's been decrying all this stuff. Just going off what I heard and have read here and there. I hadn't known the move to untie the reading program from Seuss started in 2017.
I agree conservatives have been super reactionary lately to this kind of thing. It hurts a lot of causes and it annoys me specifically because when I bring up some concerns about some of this stuff, I'm quickly labeled as a Republican or conservative.
Yeah. It doesn't say anything about you, but when the position you held is taken over by conservatives, it seems reasonable for people start thinking you're a conservative for holding what had been an entirely separate position. You're saying the same things that conservatives are saying, after all.
That's part of what I like about Tildes being small enough I can identify individual people. I can have more long-term context for what you say than dealing with your comment in a vacuum and identifying you as part of a group based on this one thing you've said.
I get why people do it. It's just frustrating as someone who doesn't fit into the two party crap at all. But yeah. Smaller sites like this are definitely better at promoting more honest conversation and debate.
EDIT: I did a very short comment, but @TheRtRevKaiser made a much more in depth and sourced comment than me, everyone check that one out instead of me.
Biden didn't mention Dr. Seuss directly in his speech, a tradition started in 2008 by Obama, 20 years after the creation of the event. And the reason the NEA gives for why they removed reference to Dr Seuss is because they are no longer partnered with the Seuss estate and they don't want to only promote one author. source. I am unable to find any other articles about separate things the admin has done to "erase" Seuss as articles have been putting it.
As others discuss in this thread, I am unable to find any libraries other than the Chicago Public Library removing the books, and even then they said they are only doing it temporarily while they discuss what they think they should do.
For the ebay point, as @burkman points out in their comment (and that matches my attempted search) it seems difficult to find a source that has ebay explain the decision, and they are still listed online. If you've got one I'm open to reading it and editing my comment accordingly.
Here's my thoughts about the four things you listed in the first paragraph.
From what I can tell, it was an action the publisher took on their own without any outside pressure. Sure you could view it as censorship, but if so it's self-censorship. I think what is more likely is that they believed that not printing and selling these books would generally be seen as a positive and would somewhat clean up the image of Dr. Seuss, thereby making them more money in the future.
The article linked only says that they were temporarily removed from the shelves while they assess them at a single library. I haven't been able to find mentions of other libraries removing the books (other than someone on reddit claiming they're a librarian who pulled the books temporarily because people were stealing them). Also, this is anecdotal and not really strong evidence either way, but I was curious and looked at the catalog for my local library just to see where they stood and five of the six books are available (I don't think they had a copy of the sixth to begin with).
With the books no longer in print it will likely be more difficult for school to get their hands on them. I couldn't find a page for the reading program/list of books (if you have a link to it I'd appreciate it) so I don't know for sure that the lower availability of the books was part of the decision (knowing if does or doesn't have other out of print books would make it clearer), but it would make sense to me as a good reason to remove them.
This is the only one I really take issue with. There are clearly issues with these books, but as far as I can tell there's nothing so outrageously bad in them that would warrant a complete ban. There are much worse things available on eBay that aren't taken down. I think that eBay likely saw that there were a lot of people talking about this and viewed it as an easy way to get some good press (or at least get their name in the press) without much effort.
EDIT: I saw some other comments said that it wasn't clear if listings were actually being removed and eBay was just having trouble keeping up or if the two linked in another comment just had some issues. Here are five listings I found that are active right now. If they get removed that'll be some more evidence for listings actually being removed.
Scrambled Eggs Super!
McElligot’s Pool
The Cat’s Quizzer
And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
And to Think That I Saw It on Mulberry Street
I appreciate the links to the ebay actions. I've seen some removed around the time all this started so it seemed consistent but as far as I know, ebay hasn't issued a statement on it or anything.
I agree the libraries one is more anecdotal. There's no mandate from above for libraries to do this and I wasn't trying to claim there was. There's certainly no epidemic of them being pulled from all libraries across the US. But when it happens even as a one-off, it makes the news and people who are worried about this stuff see it as censorship.
As for the books being removed from print - yes, it's self-censorship. Yes, they're allowed to do it. But people can also criticize it. This one I blame on our messed up copyright system though. If our system was sane, some Dr. Seuss books might have lost copyright status a while ago and they'd be free to be reprinted by other people besides his estate.
I agree that it's an issue. Life of the author plus 70 years is way too long. In the next year or so there'll probably be another push by Disney to extend it yet again (the copyright on Mickey Mouse expires in 2024).
Yeah. It's always Disney. And I bet it has bipartiasn support. So crap.
I've spent almost an hour trying to write a response to this but in the end I think I need to ask more questions and make sure I know your stance and am not arguing the spectre of an opinion I've made in my head. What part of the Seuss books being pulled from print makes it censorship? What ways could these works have been pulled from print that you would not consider censorship?
Two days later and here's the status of those five listings
So it does seem to me that they are removing listings, but some are getting through.
I assume they're using some combination of flagged keywords and user reports to find and remove listings.
The listing that was sold was titled "Eggs Dr Seuss Super" and the same account now has a listing for the Mulberry Street book with the title "Dr Seuss Mulberrry Str33t".
I have not followed the issue at all, this article has been my first foray into it - although technically my partners mom wanted to gripe about it last weekend at lunch for some reason. After going through the article, I got the impression that the author was making the point that an "effective banning that is currently happening due to 'Big Tech' not allowing their customers to sell the 'banned books'" should not be considered any different than the US Government refusing the stock the very same book(s) in the Libraries. In either way the books in question are not widely available to the general public, so why make the distinction between the 'private' banning and 'public' banning.
Now due to my inadequate research on the subject matter, I have no idea if what the author is stating is true or not. I don't know if Amazon is preventing smaller book resellers from selling the "banned books" through the Amazon web platform, so I can't comment on that.
As for my opinion on the matter: ehhhhhh, it's kinda in between the two extremes honestly. My "intellectual rage" isn't stoked at the thought of a company deciding to stop printing a couple books. At the same time, others have different priorities than I do, ya know?. Were I to come across a racist depiction with my future children somewhere in the future, I would make sure to talk to them and explain why this "looks or sounds that way"; I consider it my job to raise thoughtful, empathetic, well-rounded kids, and times like this are educational.
At the same time, that doesn't acknowledge the other side of the issue; I'm not a part of the demographic that's being depicted in the work. That's a whole different story and argument to be made there, on which I don't think I have the experience to begin. So I'll defer to someone else who has experience with that situation.
That's all fairly reasonable but as one of the top comments said, this mainly a controversy manufactured by Fox News etc to distract from real issues. Expect to see a lot of talk about the 'immigration crisis' along the same lines in the near future. I take issue with your apparent claim that private companies are obligated to uphold freedom of speech on their platforms in the same way that the US government is in public.
As for the facts regarding the author's claim about that, the comment above you linked to an article saying EBay had removed the books. With due respect, EBay removed the books? Who cares.
Seems like I missed that, it certainly does sound like a whole bunch of "Moral Saber Rattling" on their part.
That's actually kind of the opposite point I was trying to make, at least for my own opinion. I might not have been as clear as I wanted in the description [1] so I'll try again below [2].
[1]
[2]
My quote was intended to try and reduce the authors point in the article to a simpler, more manageable statement - the statement ultimately coming down to: "Government or Private (Big Tech) Business, doesn't matter who's doing the banning. It should still be considered book banning since the end result is the same." I personally don't care whether companies choose to allow sale of the books or not, I don't have a horse in this race. I was trying to provide clarity to the core ideas stated in the linked article.
While writing this, it occured to me that I never mentioned Ebay in my post. Did you mean to post this as a reply to @p4t44 ?
No sorry I mentioned EBay because I misinterpreted the first quote of yours [1] as mostly your own thoughts, not you paraphrasing the author. I thought EBay was the only major platform that removed the books but maybe I was again mistaken. It mostly seems like I should lurk more.
That's quite alright, no offense taken or harm done!
I mean ultimately that's up to you, but I don't believe you should sequester yourself from "public interaction" simply because of a misreading. Mistakes happen, ya know - that's part of the process :)
The central conceit of this article is off base. A book going out of print isn't being "forbidden." Books go out of print all the time when the publishers decide there is no longer any commercial or cultural value in continuing to print it. If you ask very nicely I'm sure they'll allow you to pay a licensing fee and reproduce a copy, at your own expense for your own use, if it really matters to you.
The author, generally, wants to argue that they shouldn't be shamed for liking a work with racist stuff in it for non-racist reasons. I get that, but even if I agree in general--that the contemporary insistence on allowing all the whiniest and thinnest skinned people on the planet to exercise veto power on what does and doesn't get regarded as worthwhile and appropriate content for everyone else--this doesn't seem like the hill to die on because the controversy exhibits the same impulse from the other side. Extremely thin skinned conservatives are getting mad about the estate for deciding not to continue printing books that they don't see commercial or artistic merit in. People have a right to not print books if they don't want to. You can't compel speech from the Geisel Estate and insist that them refusing to continue making that speech constitutes canceling. If anyone gets to speak for what the Dr. Seuss legacy ought to stand for I would think it would be his own estate wouldn't it!?
As others have argued already, the real problem here is copyright law. Books published so long ago should be out of copyright by now. So, no, I don't think the estate should have any say in this.
But, since they do, there's still an argument about whether they made the right decision. Someone exercising a legal right can still be criticized.
Criticized for what though? For not wanting to continue putting money into printing something without commercial value to them or cultural merit in their opinion? Why would anyone be obligated to keep saying things they no longer want to say? I don't think "fans" should have any say in what a 'content creator' produces. That seems WAY more dystopian of a norm to push than fears of overstepping on cancellation.
The basic dynamic seems pretty normal to me. By analogy, sometimes TV shows get cancelled, fans complain, and sometimes the network changes their minds and they get another season due to fan interest. This seems like a pretty normal part of fan culture, and not particularly dystopian? Enough people complain, and maybe the people in charge of the estate will change their minds. Then people will buy more Dr. Seuss books. (Censorship controversies tend to be good for business, too. Bookstores can put the books on their "banned books" shelf and sell more books.)
Though, at the same time, censorship and anti-censorship issues have become a political football and so, everyone arguing about this can be reasonably suspected of having an ulterior motive, or at least mixed motives.
It wouldn't have as much of a chance to become a big controversy if Dr. Seuss books weren't so popular and well-liked. From an epidemiology point of view, people are susceptible to memes and inclined to reshare them (and we are inclined to debate it here) because they care about the books as well as the politics.
The difference is that fans usually complain because they loved the work. Their arguments for why it shouldn't be taken out of circulation revolve around asserting the work's continuing relevance, cultural importance, or commercial potential.
The Seuss controversy doesn't have that. Most of the people arguing about it don't even care about the books in question because they're already the least popular Seuss books. It's framed entirely around opposing the very idea that racial sensitivity concerns should motivate decisions around what isn't worth producing. Functionally this constitutes an argument for compelled speech, forcing a publisher to continue standing by something that they do not stand for. It's not a mere disagreement with a publisher's business decision about what's worth publishing.
Even framing it as "Dr. Seuss is being cancelled" is a bad faith framing being put out by conservative media to farm outrage. It's not Dr. Seuss, it's a small set of Dr. Seuss' most problematic works that even he probably wouldn't be proud of if he were still alive to talk about them. The guy was manic depressive from before that mental health treatments were common. He had done a LOT of work that he didn't want shared because it reflected darker sides to his personality.
You seem committed to the notion that it’s all bad faith, but I don’t think it’s warranted, particularly in response to an article by someone who actually does love some of these books.
You also seem committed to the notion that the books that they discontinued are all problematic, but, looking at the pictures in the article, it looks like only one picture in one book really merits that?
The unpublished art wasn’t published. It’s not what people remember from childhood.
Good thing nobody's burning them then so he can still read them. Again, the books aren't being destroyed they're simply going out of print. It's no more "forbidden" than Amazing Fantasy #15 is and people have no more right to force it to remain in print than they have to force Marvel to reprint back issues.
Why should it matter? In the eyes of the Geisel estate that's one picture too many to be worth continuing to print it.
Honestly the insistence that every bit of ephemera from our childhoods should be preserved in amber, in perpetuity, strikes me as an immature and narcissistic demand to make of the world. Times change and an important part of maturity is learning to change with them and let the past go.
I think the author does make a bit too much of it, but where do you get the idea that he wants to "force" these books to be reprinted? People can argue, even strongly, that they should be reprinted without it being an argument about the use of force.
I’m really not sure what the author wants... only what they don’t like.
Do they want the government to tell businesses what they can and can’t sell? That seems like a terrible idea on its face...
Do they want libraries to be forced to carry particular books? Well at least you’re not adrift in a sea of legal nonsense anymore... but I imagine that you’d have better luck making an endowment to your local branch, and working with them to make all parties happy.
Do they want internet mobs to stop being so mob-like? Ok, I guess... but saying “please stop shaming ____” to the faceless, anonymous mob that is the Internet is spitting into the wind. Maybe talk about ways to humanize interactions on the web, and systematically de-emphasize discord as a growth strategy?
I shared it because it’s a more personal statement from someone who read and liked some of these books and wanted to argue in their favor. There are plenty of people sharing angry memes or arguing about censorship in general.
I read most of the books in question as a kid and a few of them (On Beyond Zebra, If I Ran the Zoo) were among my favorite Dr Seuss books. While the degree of "offense" varies from case to case, there are definitely some illustrations here that I wouldn't love to show my future kids. (And we should hold material aimed at children to the highest standard for what we'll tolerate when it comes to objectionable content.)
That being said, my perception is that the offending art is largely incidental to the works themselves—the books are not premised on outdated or racist concepts, but they do feature art with stereotypical and offensive depictions of various groups. (A counterexample might be Tin-Tin in the Congo, which I'd say is not salvageable.) I hope that a few years down the line, the Seuss folks might re-issue these books with some sort of introductory note, updated art where necessary, or both. I have a feeling that the kids of tomorrow won't mind the difference, and I think it's probably a healthy exercise in a time where there's a lot of anxiety around "cancel culture" and "is it still okay to this music / like this actor / etc.?"
There was definitely an effort in conservative media circles to frame this as "Dr Seuss is being canceled!" but I don't think that's ever been anyone's intention—I think choice to selectively discontinue these books is an example of how we can be more nuanced than all-or-nothing value judgments on the entire body of work (or the author).
To take a step back from the rest of the online debate and talk about what I think is an absurd argument by the author. An argument he makes over and over again is that we can't erase things. He gives different reasons for it (an emotional appeal of "the work is someone's favorite" to "if we hide them, we can't learn from them") but they boil down to "these things should not leave circulation". Which is just a stance I find a bit short-sighted. Is there going to be a call to bring the Steven King book "Rage" back into print? Where do we draw the line for what works someone likes enough to deserve to be enshrined in history forever. Should we do this with all TV and film? All music? All pieces of art that any person publishes, has published, or will publish? I don't know where the author would draw the line, if anywhere, to determine what should and shouldn't be available forever. And if the answer is "everything" then I have so many follow up questions. Where do we store these pieces of art forever? How do we ensure we have backups so nothing is ever lost? Do we need to audit to make sure works are never edited or lost? Who does that? Who is in charge of these backups? Is this only US works? English speaking works? All art in the world? How do non-digital works get added to the global art history? Who is responsible for any aspect of this? A single country? A private company? The UN? Video games are an art. Does that mean we need to keep playable versions of every game that is ever released around so they aren't lost? If so, who is in charge of continually making sure that there exists an emulator or some method of playing all those games as technology advances and breaks shit like the new apple silicon did? What if an artist doesnt want their art around anymore.
The idea that everything needs to be permanent is such a weird and new thing. Time is the ultimate filter of art and has been for all of human history prior to the internet and will continue to do so. If the Seuss books end up back in print, they will eventually cease to be profitable and then they will stop being printed again. It will happen.
Yes, public libraries, especially small community ones, have limited shelf space and it's the librarians' job to manage that by buying new books and culling old ones. (Though, mostly they try not to inject their political opinions into the buying process. Ideally, anyway.)
This is quite different from the research libraries that store huge amounts of books just in case some researcher might want to look at them someday. Even they have limits, though.
So yes, there's always some curation going on. But you can still make specific arguments that particular books are good and should be kept and read, and, in part, this blog post was about that.
Libraries and bookstores do sometimes hold events or do other advocacy that's generically anti-censorship, though. In light of their role as curators, this should probably be interpreted as advocating for their power to make their own curation decisions, rather than having them made by outsiders.