Quick, belated thought on book-burning:

[packbat]

What is wrong with book-burning is not that a book has been set on fire - it is that the book is no longer available to be read.

Consider a few cases:

1. A government deems a particular book to be subversive literature and orders every copy burnt. Agents of the government seize all copies found in libraries, bookstores, or private residences and commits them to the fire. This is wrong.

2. An ideologue arranges to purchase every copy of a rare book and burns them. This is wrong.

3. An ideologue arranges to purchase several copies of a commonly-available book and burns them. This is not wrong.

Apologies to everyone who got sick of the whole debacle over two weeks ago.

Comments

[bliumchik]

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that it is possible to destroy every copy of any book printed in the modern age. It's the symbolism.

[packbat]

The symbolism is disturbing.

[ciphergoth]

"Not wrong" is too strong. It might be wrong. However, it isn't a big deal.

[packbat]

The thing with commonly-available books is that new copies may be printed if there is a demand. Thus, the purchase of books by the ideologue is not likely to reduce the availability of the book to persons interested in reading them.

[ciphergoth]

The ideologue does it to send the message. It might be wrong to send the message: suppose the book is, I don't know, To Kill A Mockingbird. We would defend their right to send a message, but we might still consider it wrong.

[packbat]

I'm not saying the message isn't wrong - just defending the mode of communication.

[ciphergoth]

Well, OK, but I think in nearly all cases you'll be sending a message you shouldn't send. The symbolism of burning a book is "this should be censored", so I'm generally going to disagree.

However, destroying books in other ways may carry no other symbolism than "this is a terrible book" - thus the copy of Dianetics Iain M Banks is reputed to own with a .44 bullet embedded in its pages...

[packbat]

Well, yes. The symbolism is disturbing, and unusual circumstances would have to hold before it could be considered appropriate. But again, it's a problem with the message. "This should be censored" is a bad message in almost every circumstance.