I just saw the news that Elizabeth Gilbert has cancelled the publication of her latest novel because it’s set in Russia, a move that was criticised by Ukrainians as being insensitive to them. That immediately got me thinking:
Can we read books with “bad” themes?
Or to put it a different way: “is it acceptable to read books that may feature people/topics that we/society disagree with?”
Before I continue and talk about what Gilbert’s actions remind me about, I’d like to draw some boundaries for what I am not discussing today. I’m not talking about inappropriate or appropriate books for children. Children may not be able to critically think about what they read, and there are definitely books that are not suitable for young children (e.g. explicitly sexual content, books that would damage someone’s self-esteem in the long run, etc) and there are also books that children should not be reading without a parent or teacher there to discuss it (e.g. books with heavy, graphic violence that may upset young children). In my post today, I’m mainly going to be talking about adults who I presume are able to discern when things agree or disagree with their values.
Back to Gilbert. Her self-cancellation reminded me of Amélie Wen Zhao’s self-cancellation after early readers accused her book of glorifying slavery. That in turn reminded me of Krysta’s recent, excellent post on When Writers Seemingly Don’t Trust Their Audience.
Because the way I see it, these self-cancellations of books with “bad” themes come down to two things:
- Writers don’t trust readers to be able to read a book and realise that the author may not agree with everything in the book
- Readers themselves are unwilling to read books that might offend them.
As a reader, I find the first reason rather insulting, and the second a bit more complicated. I am definitely allowed to choose what I want or don’t want to read, so at what point does my voice become part of a mob’s voice?
But let’s start with the first item: the lack of trust between writer and reader. In general, I agree with those who put their money where their mouths are, who choose not to support certain companies that carry out actions that contravene their moral values. For example, someone might choose not to support fast fashion for ethical and/or environmental reasons. Or they might choose not to support an author/artist who has proclaimed that proceeds from sales of an album/book/merchandise would go to a cause they oppose. But to choose not to support someone on the grounds that a book meant for adults has themes they disagree with? Without considering if the author wrote in the theme/setting to illuminate why something is bad/show a different side to the story?
It’s something that I don’t understand. And it’s probably why the themes/messaging in fiction is getting more and more overt (or at least, that’s what it feels like). It feels a bit insulting, to think that I, as a reader, cannot separate the views of the author from the views of a character, or that I cannot read a book and consider why one character might praise something I find abhorrent. It makes for very flat characters as well – villains are villains through and through and even “morally gray” are only gray on acceptable opinions.
Still, can I fault an author for thinking that when readers seem to demand for books with clear themes? I think the one feeds into the other and the more the social media mob brays for blood because a book contained something they disagreed with, the less an author trusts their readers.
Which goes back to the question that I posed earlier: is it acceptable to read books with themes/opinions/characters that we disagree with?
As readers, we can influence author/publisher behaviour through our reviews and voices (because of course they won’t want to be cancelled/want to write things that earn them lots of money), where do we draw the line on books that we don’t want to read? I generally just move on from books that don’t appeal to me, though I admit there were times when I wrote a scathing review on a book because it glorified something I strongly disagreed with (ahem, the racism in Revealing Eden). I definitely don’t believe that readers are duty-bound to say only nice things about the book. But I also don’t want to be part of a mob and overreact to something.
Peatlong commented on Krysta’s post that in general, we tend to be more sensitive to things that we disagree. I think that’s a great point and it’s also why I want to hear from others on this topic. I believe that we want to stand up for the values we believe in, that we don’t want to cause others harm. At the same time, I think it’s reasonable to give authors the benefit of the doubt that they can write horrible characters without espousing horrible views (or set a story in a country whose government is doing horrible things without endorsing what is going on).
Perhaps the real question is: how do we live with this tension?
Ok, let me get this straight: people review bombed a novel to the point the author cancelled the whole thing just because it was set in Russia? Not even modern Russia? Just Russia in general? That is so bizarre to me.
To answer your question, yes we can read books with bad things as long as it doesn’t mentally harm us. I personally have very few hang ups around subject matter so I’ll give most things a go if they look interesting enough but, even when I feel iffy about a subject, I still think it should exist. Someone will want to read it, even if the subject matter is incredibly gross.
I agree with your line that it’s okay to read books as long as they don’t harm us – it’s a good rule of thumb. And now that you mentioned it, I think we can expand it a bit to whether a book should be made unavailable to society – will the book harm others (e.g. calls to action for harm and/or works as a blueprint that people could follow).
Of course, I think that rule may be too broad because personal triggers vary widely and one person may think that a certain book would harm society in very real ways while others would disagree vehemently.
I think the problem with making books unavailable to society is that it wouldn’t get rid of them, it’ll just push them underground. The whole thing about keeping books like Mein Kampf in copyright is to make it harder for Nazis to get their hands on it.
while i don’t think censorship is ever the answer (unless you’re publishing incitements to violence, which isn’t protected by the constitution here in the US), i am slightly torn on this. i would never all out tell someone that they flat out “aren’t allowed to read [x,y, & z], and if they do they’re a bad person,” but i would caution them to think carefully about what they read because books have the power to influence us in very minute, subconscious ways. people in the book community always want to say “books have the power to influence and change us, our words, our actions, our lives”…up until the point that a book they’re a fan of is rightfully criticized (see: harry potter, jane eyre, hp lovecraft, the list goes on…). then all of a sudden “it’s just a book!” but the truth is books *do* have power over us, often in ways that aren’t consciously noticeable even to us, and often in ways that aggragate into larger beliefs over long periods of time. i think the best way to combat this is to discuss books with others, to get more perspectives on the ideas they present, that way we can form nuanced takes on books, and by extension on life itself.
I understand feeling conflicted – there are times where I read something and feel it’s overblown (like Gilbert’s book) but I also remember I was absolutely furious about Saving Eden (racism) and I still don’t read anything by Kathleen Hale (no one should be rewarded for boasting about stalking).
But I agree discussing the ideas in books can help a lot. One good thing about books is that we can put them down and “argue” with them (a lot of my 3 star reviews are me wrestling with ideas), which is something I’ve not really been able to do with other forms of media. And of course, talking to others and reading their thoughts.
I once read a book called “The Ten Worst Books in History.” It included the Communist Manifesto and the Kinsey Report. This book argued that these books should not be banned or burned, but faced, read, and thoroughly understood.
Now, these were nonfiction books, and your post is asking about fiction. I do feel that, if readers are sophisticated in their thinking and are familiar with philosophy and theology, they will more easily able to identify what bothers them about a book of fiction. For example, I was raised in a slightly Marxist environment. Now that I am very familiar with Marxist thinking and its extreme, black-and-white oppressor/oppressed way of understanding the world, I honestly have a really hard time reading fiction that is mostly about class warfare. I once put down a sci-fi book because it went from exploring a scary new planet, to a ho-home French Revolution happening on another planet.
Similarly, I have a hard time with heavy-handed feminism like A Handmaid’s Tale, because it’s really just another form of Marxist class warfare.
But in neither case would I try to get the book cancelled or banned. I would just argue with it in appropriate contexts.
How much more, when a book contains bad things that are actually presented in a sensitive, complex way!
*ho-hum
I don’t know if it’s true but I’ve always felt it’s easier to argue with nonfiction. With fiction it’s a bit harder, though I still don’t quite get the idea that what’s in a book represents the opinions of authors (how would people write villains?)
I should have to check out the ten worst books book sometime! It sounds very interesting.
Yes, that is what is so frustrating about fiction. It can actually make very attractive and convincing a philosophical outlook that, if you tried to argue for it directly, most people would immediately see through.
When I say “argue with it,” of course, I mean doing literary analysis as one does when we know our way around fiction. You have to be able to talk about the story, show that you’ve understood it, and then show the themes. And then you can address those themes and whether you think they stand up to reality. I don’t mean that everything that happens in a book, or everything that every character says in a book, is something the author endorses. But having really digested a book, you can clearly tell what the author loves and what they hate.
In the case of boneheaded online mobs objecting to a book because of its setting or something like that, they are making the very basic mistake you describe, of assuming that the author endorses all the details of the story. But it is possible to avoid that basic mistake, understand what the story is saying to you, and still disagree with it. It’s even possible to enjoy the story, acknowledge that it is well told, but ultimately find its moral universe repellant.
I feel that the mark of a really good author is to be able to present both sides convincingly, although like you said, we may be able to guess which side they support. But yes, critically reading (and a firm personal knowledge of our own worldview/values) is key if we want to be able to read the book while not believing everything it says.
I have to say that I think it’s good to read things I disagree with – I may not enjoy the experience but challenging my beliefs helps me understand why people may disagree and hopefully that makes for a more productive conversation if I ever have to defend my view.
I am totally for reading books with things that we or even the author disagree with. The whole point it to appreciate different point of views and build your own. There’s so much to learn with things that might be considered “bad” in certain societies or by certain people! 😮
That is true! I suspect being open to reading things that we disagree with helps us change our mind on things/makes it easier for us to dialogue with people who share different opinions.
I’m curious – would you buy a book from an author you disagreed with? I have to admit that’s pretty hard for me, I’d be more likely to borrow the book to read first (but tbf, I borrow 90% of the new books I read)
[…] Last but not least, some thoughts on how we handle books with Eustacia talking about whether we can read books with bad themes […]
I always appreciate this discussion because I feel like it has so many nuances and that’s why it never gets old. It’s kind of like every instance of censorship or bookish controversy has its own context that needs to be taken into account. So even though, for instance, I am absolutely against censorship, I would probably agree that certain things shouldn’t be published (like, I don’t know, if someone wrote a how-to guide on how to lure in women and harm them, I would certainly put pressure on the publisher to reconsider why they are publishing such a book and what they hope to accomplish).
But books also get complicated because so many times lately, no one has even read them before deciding they should be pulled. Books tend to be more complex, too, than some readers give them credit for, so it’s not always advisable to rely on one reviewer’s take on what the book says. I have absolutely seen reviewers take words out of context/misread the book! Like if a character, for instance, has self-esteem issues for being overweight, some reviewers will label the book “fatphobic” even though it could actually be a critique of modern society and the media and how that affects people and their self-image. The book’s core message might be the opposite of what the reviewer took away. So getting a book pulled before anyone has read it and has a chance to analyze it for themselves can be a concern.
Generally, though, I don’t think it’s a problem to read books we disagree with. I think it’s actually beneficial to see what the other side has to offer and to think through whether or not we disagree or agree with all their points. And why. At a bare minimum, we might learn that we misunderstood the other side’s argument, or that we at least now can defend our own side better. It would be nice to think, too, that we might learn that the people on the other side aren’t always de facto evil and might have their own set of logic that lead them to their conclusions.
And we have to keep in mind that this idea of challenging our beliefs and looking at the other side goes for ALL people. The bookish community tends to share certain values like a belief that books should be inclusive and diverse, for instance. And they tend to assume that everyone thinks the same way they do, too, and that censoring or pulling harmful books means only those books THEY find offensive or harmful. But it goes both ways. If we say no one should read a book they disagree with, this means that people who don’t want inclusion are excused from being exposed to diversity and will never get a chance to view the other side of their beliefs. I don’t think that’s what most bookish influencers arguing for pulling offensive books were thinking.
As to the particular book in question–it seems odd to me both to pull a book no one has read yet just for the setting and to argue that any book set in a certain country is harmful by nature of existing. We don’t know the content of the book or what it says. We do know that typically everyone in the same country is not exactly the same, and does not hold the same beliefs. We know that the leader of a country does not always speak for the people, and that a number of people have left the country or otherwise defected or protested. We also know this book is set in the past, so may or may not be relevant to today’s specific events. I do believe words have power. I’m just not sure what the words in this book even say!
Good point about each book controversy having its context – I certainly feel differently about Gilbert’s book and Blood Heir compared to the fuss made about Katherine Hale and the Save the Pearls books!
You brought up the word “censorship” – that was interesting because I feel like the word is only used when books we like get pulled. If we think a book contains a message we disagree with, we’re unlikely to call for the “censorship” of a book but rather for the publisher to “stop doing harm”. Conversely, if we agree with the book being pulled, we’ll label those actions as “censorship”.
I think the tension of “what books should remain available (to the general public/to children/etc)” comes from trying to balance all the different viewpoints in society over what is acceptable to express publicly. Most freedom-of-speech people aren’t absolute freedom-of-speech, so it’s strange we tend to talk about this as though everyone shares (or should share) the same values instead of thinking of this process as determining where we, as a society, stand in regards to our out-of-bounds markers and recognising that it may be different from other countries and may change over time.
I’m not sure if I’m making sense??