|
Books aren't as dangerous as they used to be.
Back in the early days of the printing press and up to the 20th century, a book could be a potent force for change. Now, beginning in the late 20th century, we have such a glut of books and ideas that one single book has to compete with myriad other books (and ideas). This is not only because of the sheer volume of books being published, but also because of other media---namely, radio, television, other print media, and the game-changer we like to call the Internet.
What's interesting, though, is the context under which this thread has started to develop. I think that books/ideas have less an impact on society because of the very systems that have been set up on national and global scales. Take the concept of the "nanny state" that was mentioned. It's these very ideals and the coinciding legislation under each that people criticize (or support) which make the state more resistant to radical change.
That said, books, no matter how terrible, shouldn't be at the risk of falling beneath the blackness of censorship. However, it should be expected that anything published will most certainly run the risk of being ridiculed, ignored, or otherwise criticized. Every book that garners attention will undoubtedly face the often harsh climate generated by book critics around the world.
Ideas should not be barred from reaching the public. But I suspect that it happens all the time where ideas are suppressed in one way or another. I think this happens more often in other ways than the censorship or banning of a book. That thought seems so old school now.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön
Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
|