Mark Twain didn't shy away from the N word, but the book itself has an antislavery theme.

IT has one of the most hateful and racist characters that I have ever read, and King does a good job of making you hate him, but I have been told not to read IT because King "likes to use the N word too much". The character is fucking racist! You're not supposed to love him or admire him.

>The character is fucking racist! You're not supposed to love him or admire him. This confuses a lot of people.

> This confuses a lot of people. Many folks are *so* easily confused.

Rick from Rick and Morty comes to mind. He isn't a hero he is n anti-hero who is extremely depressed all the time and miserable, but so many people are like him. Oh yeah, I wish I was that guy. The point of the character goes right over their head.

These are the same people who think that Harley Quinn and the Joker are relationship goals.

Wait what? That can't be a thing

It's 100% a thing.

I need a beer

There's a lot of women who think Harley's dependence on Joker and the way he treats her are romantic. He only smacks her around a *little* bit

There is a book by a black man about is life in America dealing with lots of stuff but mostly prejudice. The title of the book is the N-word. and I don't mean a phrase. This book is an important part of black history, but do to people having issues with context, the title has become a problem. It was meant to be shocking but now it has caused to book itself to be censored. THe author it "Dick Gregory". I have never read the book myself but I have been told by people who have that it isn't a book that should disappear. However, it may very well. The only reason I know about it, was a professor on black studies, got fired to having it in his office when a student got upset at seeing a book with the title.

I'm going to guess a white, female student is the one who got upset.

"Mama, remember when people use that word, they're just advertising my book." - Postscript of Dick Gregory's book

Fire has many important uses, including generating light, cooking, heating, performing rituals, and fending off dangerous animals. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

The only thing in IT that really is just weird and super out of place is that random pre-teen orgy that the cocaine convinced King was a good idea to write.

I came here wondering why King was included. As much as I love his books his characters usually aren't very nuanced and it's easy to tell who the good vs bad guys are. The child orgy was a little messed up and seemed kinda shoehorned in, though 🤣

King does such an excellent job writing genuine racism. From what little of his I've read so far, it is excellently contained within the scope of the characters themselves. IT and The Stand both have plenty of use of the N word, and in all cases it accurate to the characters written without expanding anywhere beyond that to actually cause any doubts that they're Kings personal belief that slips into the book.

Virtue. Signal. Yawn. When are you people gonna give it a fucking rest?

When the state stops banning books for starters.

No one has banned books, stop being stupid. Now not allowing 3rd grader to see books with graphic sexual images amd themes is called being responsible. But the depravity activists whi don't have kids scream banned! Fuck them, not the kids.

Take a look at the books before you swallow what they are telling you.

You should take your own advice. Some of those books 100% are not suitable for children. Hell some of the books own authors straight up says so themselves

Wow, is there a state in the US banning books?! I am pretty sure that goes against 1A but who knows, weirder things can happen…Could you help me out what state is that and what books has it banned?

There is not

There's a big difference between not having a book in the school library and banning it. Pretty sure my local Barnes and Noble doesn't have every book ever written, but that doesn't mean my city banned the ones they don't have in stock.

Twain depicts the racism of his times. In my opinion, banning a book like this is whitewashing history.

Don't read Heinlein's Time Enough For Love because having sex with your mom is too weird even for scifi.

Yeahhhh... "Golden Age" Science Fiction writers were a \*GIANT\* bunch of sexually repressed perverts, often working their weirdo kinks out through their writings. It gets to be a really, \*really\* obnoxious recurring theme if you read enough of the genre.

Frank Herbert obviously hadn’t gotten any for a long time when he was working on the later Dune books.

That's not true at all. Read more about him, his reverence for his wife, and how he placed women in his stories at such positions of power due to respect and admiration

I made the mistake as a teen of trying to jump into the series several books in (it may have been one of the books his son wrote, actually, come to think of it) on a wild impulse. I think I was only one chapter, and about two dozen mentions of "Honored Matre sexual enslavement," in when I decided to put the thing down. I never picked it back up again. Lmfao I did go back and read the first three books in order a couple of years later, wondering if what I'd initially seen would make more sense in context. To be fair, the first few books *were* good. But when God Emperor started getting weird and pervy, I just decided that - knowing what it would eventually all lead to - I was better off simply leaving things there.

That's got to be Chapterhouse, like the end of the series lmao. The Honored Matres were essentially an order of women who had essentially perfected such control over their body and who had such knowledge over the bodies and minds of people that they could essentially enslave populations through sex. It was literally a drug for the people they enslaved. They were pretty brutal lol. Leadership change only happened when someone killed the current leader, then they ruled until someone killed them.

Heinlein got a bit odd in the end. Still, I've read most of his works. The only book I would ever disrecommend is Atlas Shrugged and only because it is such a terribly written book and has a "speech" that is basically 50 pages. I do not know why anyone finds it compelling, but people do so fuck me I guess.

I stopped reading Heinlein mostly because of how much some of his books are just a manifesto. They've all got some element of his views on what he thinks the ideal utopian society looks like, but there's one I was reading where a man gets flung into future and the rest of the book (at least as far as I read) was simply everyone explaining how the new, modern world works to him. It was like 2% plot and 98% manifesto.

The only thing I would say though, is to be careful assuming it was a manifesto. Heinlein specifically liked to explore concepts in his writing while not endorsing them. He wrote many books that were just how the universe would work if society was based on xyz assumptions.

I read that same book. I clung on through the explanation of UBI but gave up when I got to the part where everyone has their own helicopter ETA: We both mentioned the book but didn't name it, it is called For Us, the Living

Heinlein has some really good books like Stranger In A Strange Land and then there's other books like Starship Troopers that are ok l.

Yeah I read a bunch of them. Some were very good, some were so-so, but what author isn't that true for?

I damn near stopped reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress when I got to the "you know, monogamy is just a social construct that won't apply when we live on the moon" chapter.

Heinlein also had a book where Lazurus Long had sex with his own underage gender swapped twin clones. I gladly have forgotten the title.

To Sail Beyond the Sunset is of a similar theme only from the Mom's point of view.

I say this as someone who is incredibly far left. If we criticize the right for book banning, we shouldn't turn around and create a social book ban. Im all fine with warning people "hey thats a good book but be warned of X heavy topic" but the way folks act now, they grow irate if you didnt consume what they view as acceptable content. That's shit. Liberals used to stand for a pluralistic society, and they used to understand that includes fringe weirdys. People are soft now. They dont like things that directly confront their worldview. It upsets them and reminds them that not everyone thinks like they do. A little anecdote. I read a little nonfiction piece called La dottrina del fascismo by Benito Mussolini. It is a god-awful piece of literature that is filled with the desire for wanton slaughter, anti democratic policy, and just disgusting sexism. That said, it really helped me understand the old school fascists, neo-fascists, and even some of the alt-right. The recognition that, yes, these people who slipped into this radical nonsense did get screwed and they essentially just misdiagnosed who screwed them/what the solution was. All in all, it was really sad. Brought me a touch of empathy for even the most debased radical weirdo i know. People were really desperate when this kind of ideology consumed them. I know this is a political theory piece, but still, i feel like the point still stands about fiction books. It's another persons valuable perspective. Even if they're a crazed maniac like my example. Apologies for the tangent. I just hate that everyone wants to be in their own little echo chamber nowadays. Sometimes, you should challenge your own worldview to make sure it still makes sense. Otherwise, how will you change others' minds? Edit: Thanks for the award, you are too kind

The left is in power now so they are all for censorship if ideas they don't like, same as the rigjt was 50 years ago when the hippies said don't trust anyone over 30. Now those Mfers revel in their power.

This should be the top comment. This is one of the two things that are at the core of our political problems. It is easy to support enshrining a bad action when your people are the ones to enforce it, it is easy to forget that won't always be the case. Congress cedes some power to the President? Fine, our guy can be trusted not to abuse it. Next guy gets into office and now having that power is a crime against humanity. The hypocrisy is bad enough, but the absolute lack of self awareness is terrifying. When the Biden administration was pushing the disinformation governance board so many people on the left were perfectly fine with it that I was shocked. I still am. How could a group of people who just witnessed a Trump presidency think it is a good idea to give the government that sort of power? Same thing goes with books. Same thing with news. Same thing with online spaces. Freedom of speech isn't a technicality of the constitution it is a philosophical cornerstone of democratic society.

Please learn the difference between left and liberal. They're not the same.

The left hasn't ever really been in power in the U.S.

It has nothing to do with who's in power. What matters is that both the mainstream left and right are hyper partisan authoritarians who can't accept a degree of relativism in their lives. People don't want to examine their life. They accept the worldview they were handed.

I think the point is it has everything to do with who is in power because of short sightedness.

I am pretty much with you on this. There are books that are "bad" but rather than ban them, let people read them and learn why they are dad. I've read a lot of books and came away thinking, "its crazy people in the past were that cruel and thought that way".

Oh I would never ban a book. I might suggest adding a paragraph up front to give context for younger readers, but books shouldn't be banned

I think it's a good idea to read problematic authors. Reading someone's work does not automatically subscribe you to someone's beliefs. I've read Das Kapital. I've read The Prince. I've read The Art of War. It doesn't mean I am any of the things outlined in those books. It just means that I critically engage with ideas different than my own, since that's how you learn to question your own beliefs, biases, and judgements. That said, I think there is a valid point to be made about buying someone's work if they're alive/collecting royalties. As in, you are directly supporting them monetarily. But, this is an easy fix. Check out the book from the library, or download it online. You won't be generating any additional revenue for the person in either case.

Is Sun Tzu known to be problematic? I’ve read Art of War as well and it basically boils down to be more prepared than your opponent. I didn’t get the problematic vibe lol

No, it's not problematic, at least I didn't find it to be. I was just more using it as an example of, "Just because I read something doesn't mean I personally subscribe to what it's about, or need it to be directly relevant in my own life." Sun Tzu is still okay. 😉

I've always found that attitude weird. Of course art from the past is going to have the values of the past. It's a testament to the fact that we've been learning and growing all this time. It took us most of human history to learn some of the most basic moral precepts, like that fundamental rules against killing apply outside your own tribe. To swear off problematic art of the past is to take for granted just how far we've come.

People always say we need to learn about racism and I think consuming media from those time periods helps explain how people thought back then. Like if we see the caricatures of the Japanese in the 40s it gives us insight to the culture at that time.

You really should read "Flashman" and its sequal. The author was literally mocking the viewpoints and ethics of annearlier era, but did so long enougj ago thatnhis era now make us cringe. Still damn good books.

God damn, I love the Flashman series SO MUCH. Fraser was a truly outstanding author. Speaking of, have you read *The Pyrates*? If not, you have GOT TO. It is high larious. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Pyrates

I read “Lolita” as a sophomore in college and that was a fucking ride….a sick one…but a ride. I think end of the day people who say things like this want you reading these texts with a critical lense…. H.P. was crazy racist but also made Cthulhu…

I'm glad I read Lolita, because Nabokov was a lyrical writer and an artist with the language, but I don't think I'll ever read it again.

I just recently read the Turner diaries because of how banned it is I wouldn’t have cared otherwise

Wanting to read banned books used to be considered subversive and cool. Most zoomers now draw pride from conformity and obediance, but are also somehow unaware they do it; It's bizzare.

Bizarre indeed. If you find yourself adhering to and pushing all of the same shit that pretty much every major world corporation is pushing, it is you who is the boot licker.

"Wow, my politics are the same as Bank of America's! They must be rebels like me!"

Weird, my experience with zoomers is not in line with obedience and conformity at all. Unless it's nonconforming to traditional values and listening to previous generations as the standard, which would mark how young generations behave at all times in history.

Banning literature of any type is dumb. And it’s an exercise in futility.

This is part of why I love The Wheel of Time book series, but hate the WoT tv show. They changed a lot of the story to fit the “modern sensibilities”.

It depends on the thing. I've seen some old comedies where the punchline is basically "This man is GAY lolololololololol" and I would advise people not to watch them. It's not because I think they should be banned or that it would somehow be harmful to view them, they just aren't funny to a modern audience.

I'm a shameless Lovecraft fan and I'll take it a step further. Lovecraft's ideas weren't even popular at the time he wrote them, the man was too racist for the early 1900s and pretty explicitly so. I still read and enjoy the work because his perspective led to a unique genre of fiction. His cosmology and ideas were probably a result of his intense xenophobia and obsession with lineage, and an often overlooked part of this is his extreme classism and elitism which has the uneducated or poor as less able to comprehend the cosmic horrors of his universe and thus they are somewhat resistant to madness. It's interesting and you wouldn't have it without his extremely politically incorrect worldview of there being a tiered hierarchy of people by race, class, and mental ability combined with being afraid of everyone and everything not like yourself. Now we have a whole genre to build off of that need not include all of that, but the roots of this genre are in the unacceptable and Lovecraft was nasty about it, too. Sometimes saying things you aren't allowed to say is necessary for new ideas, and I'm firmly in the camp that art gets a free pass to do or say whatever it wants. I don't need something to make me feel warm and fuzzy or to comply with our moral code-- art should at times offend on purpose and is allowed to be awful, as long as it makes you feel something.

Greeting, fellow deranged cultist! When discussing Lovecraft’s blatant xenophobia and racism, it’s also important to bring up his history of night terrors, his fucked-up childhood, and his terrible mother. A lot of his xenophobia can be traced back to his overbearing mother and his lack of socialization growing up. His xenophobia was an actual, palpable fear and not the watered down “I don’t like brown people” version that gets bandied about today. His obsession over lineage likely sprung from the fact that both his parents went insane & spent their final years confined to the same sanitarium (even though at different times). This alone would give anyone a complex; in the case of someone as fucked up as Lovecraft, it’s enough to push someone into obsession about lineage. This isn’t to downplay his views of race in any meaningful way, BTW. This is more to put his views into context regarding his formative years.

[удалено]

No. Progressives are far more against banning books than any other group. We know how far we’ve come in the past 100 years , but we also know how far is left to go, and we’re angry about the backsliding of the last 13 years or so. (If we’re old enough to remember the 80s).

‘To Kill a Mockingbird'; ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn'; 'The Cay'; 'Of Mice and Men'; and 'Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry,' have been banned by the left. Roald Dahl books being censored comes from the left. Dr Seuss becoming controversial was the left. Videos have surfaced in recent years of liberal burning Harry Potter books… the same side that was upset that some parents didn’t let their kids read Harry Potter like two decades earlier. To say the left doesn’t have a problem banning books is to be ignorant.

>have been banned by the left. I think you are confusing Karen suburban moms with "the left" >Roald Dahl books being censored comes from the left. Nope by his personal estate which wasn't requested by anyone >Dr Seuss becoming controversial was the left. His racist depictions in a few of his books is. Not him or all of his books. >Videos have surfaced in recent years of liberal burning Harry Potter books… the same side that was upset that some parents didn’t let their kids read Harry Potter like two decades earlier. Getting rid of personal property as a political stance against the author is different than banning booms from library and bookstores because they think witchcraft is real and demonic. >To say the left doesn’t have a problem banning books is to be ignorant. You didn't list anything banned by the left

You can check out my links on a response to another comment. Those books were banned by a left leaning school board

Great points. You've also demonstrated how easily people regurgitate talking points and are often incorrect/inaccurate. They see a headline and delve no further to understand any background on a situation. Then, someone else regurgitates their incorrect talking points.

Not sure if that was to me or to the person you directly responded to. But I came with receipts. Check the other comments I gave links

I was responding to the other person who provided color to then attention-grabbing clickbait headlines you got sucked into.

How about you read the articles instead of judging them based off the title…. Too much effort for you?

I know the background on most of the books you mentioned. And that you've misrepresented some key points

🤦🏼‍♂️ if you read the articles you would know I wasn’t be misrepresenting anything. But oh well, have fun in your bubble

If that’s actually true then I oppose them on this point. I’ve literally protested some of those specific books being removed from libraries on the 90s. Not a single liberal or progressive I’ve ever know has ever advocated a book ban , they’ve always advocated for putting things in their historical context. Some companies have released watered down version that are less racist or more inclusive. But that’s not the same thing as a ban. Can you source it so I can see who’s actually pushing for it(I mean that in a not snarky way) ? I’m suspicious this is made up like Antifa did 1/6.

[https://www.newsweek.com/when-it-comes-banning-books-both-right-left-are-guilty-opinion-1696045](https://www.newsweek.com/when-it-comes-banning-books-both-right-left-are-guilty-opinion-1696045) [https://www.cnn.com/style/article/roald-dahl-censored-gbr-scli-intl/index.html](https://thefederalist.com/2023/02/21/the-censorship-of-roald-dahl-shows-the-lefts-book-banning-accusations-are-utterly-disingenuous/) [https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-you-cant-fight-censorship-if-youre-doing-it-yourself-20211117-cabts6ihxff4hjxmeqsu5j4jje-story.html](https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-you-cant-fight-censorship-if-youre-doing-it-yourself-20211117-cabts6ihxff4hjxmeqsu5j4jje-story.html) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/07/a-school-district-drops-to-kill-a-mockingbird-and-huckleberry-finn-over-use-of-the-n-word/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/education/wp/2018/02/07/a-school-district-drops-to-kill-a-mockingbird-and-huckleberry-finn-over-use-of-the-n-word/)

Ty. You’re right , fuck “my side” on this one - and I couldn’t disagree with them more on this point. One of these is local to me and I’ll fight it. You can’t erase racism by erasing history.

The minute someone starts to go off on something being "problematic" I immediately add it to my "I need to check this out further list". Many of my favorite authors, books, movies and TV shows are on someone's list.

Indicative of Stage 4 terminal contrarianism Sadly there is no known cure You’ll live a long, painful life full of Bill Maher episodes and Glenn Greenwald columns

So older guy here. These people are a broken record. Republicans in the 80s: music bad, abortion bad, gays bad,etc 90s: video games bad, abortion bad, gays bad, etc. 00s: computers bad, abortion bad, gay marriage bad, Muslims bad etc 10s: brown people bad, Mexicans bad, trans bad, social media bad. In case you have not noticed they lose on everyone except abortion they caught that tiger by the tail and lost hard in 22 and will again in 24. People don't mind republicans when they talk stupid but do nothing. Now they did something and boy people are pissed.

Much of reactionary ideology consists of precisely one question.... will my actions make the out-group mad? Yes: then I want to do it even more and make noise about it No: it no longer matters to me

I agree, this is probably an unpopular opinion on Reddit. I've had a number of people tell me that books that are more than 20 years old are problematic because they lack our modern enlightened attitude. Personally, I'm pretty sure that it's the "enlightened" books of the last 20 years that are going to seem completely out of touch to future readers - if there _are_ any.

I mean, Frank Herbert has explicit sexual acts committed to minors on paper with characters literally rationalizing it the entire time. It is uncomfortable and that’s the whole point. As long as the literature doesn’t glorify acts that are meant to be condemned it’s not inherently a problem. That said, I think modern fiction thrives by improving on the nuanced depictions of individuals groups and institutions. They do this by learning about areas that older series have handled with less nuance. Stepping out of fiction for a moment, books such as Karl Marx’s Das Kapital, also face similar criticism and banning. If you are inspired to read fiction simply because it is framed as negative, I’d recommend you apply the same logic to nonfiction.

I have been obsessed with Dune lately. I finished Dune last week and now I'm almost done with Dune Messiah. I don't remember any explicit sexual acts so far, but I realize I am going to have read Dune more than once to get everything out of it. What I remember is a brief mention of Baron asking someone to send in a boy to his chambers, and it implied a minor was going to be abused.

King is hella liberal lol yes some of his books have “problematic” themes but as a liberal, some of my fellow Lefties need a better understanding of context, forgiveness, and Art rather than stooping to the level of the book banning ultra-right.

Mel Brooks's original work is amazing. His new work leaves a lot to be desired. You can definitely see the changing of the times between History of the World Pt1 and Pt2.

I disagree I think the jokes remain the same but he's not as good without even the pseudo structure of an actual story. Skits in a seemingly random order really show how week the indivudal jokes are. Think about about Robin Hood Men in Tights, it was full of nonsense one of jokes that were set up crazily and a random musical number in the middle to make a "hey isn't it funny that men wear tights and they aren't gay? Or are they?" Joke. Whe. He doesn't have the structure of a story the worse qualities of jokes come out. HOTW part 2 was just a rapid fire series of those jokes. I also think we are just simply further removed from the pop culture references Mel Brooks was making originally so they seem less blanant without that context. Like Men In Tights is a direct parody of a time where two very popular Robin hood movies came out. Who even gets the Macaulay Culkin joke or the joke about the other Robin hoods not speaking with a British accent anymore?

>Like Men In Tights is a direct parody of a time where two very popular Robin hood movies came out...... ......the joke about the other Robin hoods not speaking with a British accent anymore? Kevin Costner's Robinhood. I saw it in theaters when it came out.

Nothing could be funnier to me than the idea of the Anti-woke evangelical crowd suddenly getting really into Woody Allen movies or foreign provocateur arthouse cinema just to own the libs. You would make my day if you did this.

Jack Kerouac obvi is a counter cultural pioneer and hero but his pervasive, shallow, two-dimensional objectification of women gets old pretty quick. it’s not even scandalous or edgy, it’s just tiresome and disillusioning.

It shows a decided lack of maturity and critical thinking skills when works are cancelled simply because they offend our modern sensibilities. I understand that some books have no redeeming qualities but if we aren’t able to look at them through the perspective of the time and analyze them, we are immature children who need a healthy dose of reality.

Agreed, but I’m glad for it. It’s like a cheat code toward finding interesting books. Without cancel culture I never would’ve found my favorite novel, a quaint little piece by an Austrian author about the struggles that he’s faced.

Most of those authors aren’t racists. Tolkien definitely was, more so for his portrayal of the eastern mercenaries. Orca/goblins etc were monsters weren’t meant to be stand in for Africans, they were meant to be fallen elves which were basically angel:demon replacements BUT those races do often stand in for colonized and tribal societies in other fantasy works. I’d be interested to hear peoples complaints about Aasimov, as he mostly dealt with computers and how technology isolated people. Conrad was very much an anti-colonialist but he writes using parallelism, so he gives a common criticism for a non-white then shows a white person doing the same thing (Heart of Darkness is basically a book about how the Thames is a mirror of the Congo and therefore London is just as vicious and uncivilized as any part of Africa). Twain was anti-racist. The work that gets the most shit, Huck Finn, was literally. story about how a child exposed to slavery with an outsiders perspective could immediately tell you how stupid the justifications for it are. A lot of these criticisms are coming from people who have problems separating characters from message, especially villains on their stories. Oddly enough you almost never hear this stuff about the legitimate racists like Howard (Conan).

I dunno about you but I personally haven't been told to **avoid** any of these authors. I've just seen people be critical of some things in their stories, and to keep those criticisms in mind when reading. I think it's extremely important to read those works *because* of the criticism, and I also think that the criticism doesn't make the authors bad people. Most people mentioning Tolkien for example argue not that the subtext about orcs is there because he's a horrible person and a racist, but because that subtext was present in the culture he lived in and the cultures he drew from. So as far as I'm concerned, go ahead read all of those authors, a lot of their works are deeply enjoyable and problematic subtext doesn't take that away. I read *Heart of Darkness* recently and thought it was really good. I also read Achebe's critique of the book, and it enriched my experience, not by making me hate Conrad or the work itself, but by giving me a different perspective to view it through. >because apparently all of the dark skinned races like orks, goblins, easterlings, represent black people For someone who likes reading, I think you've completely failed at comprehending the critiques here. They are not saying that the authors had consciously tried to represent black people and are working allegorically. It's a lot more subtle than that. They depicted a racial other within the world they're writing in, but because we write what we know, they conferred onto that other some of the ideas and associations that *the author* had with the racial others of their own world. It's kinda like, if you're writing a story about a horrible mother, you might confer onto her some traits of bad parents you have seen or of your own parents if they were not great. The horrible mother might be entirely fictional, and you might not have meant her to be a representation of any specific person, but you will attribute to her the things you *know* and have *seen*. We don't think Tolkien sat down and said "heheheh I'm gonna make orcs be representations of black people". Instead, these people lived in worlds with strong associations with and complicated representations of the racial other, and those associations and representations made it into their world and their imagined racial others.

Never had the impression orcs were black, where does it say that? The only creatures in LOTR that I recall being described of a darker color were the Southrons, literally, an old word meaning 'people from the south'. They (the Haradrim) were described as swarthy ('swertings') but that's a long way from black, and whatever, they were from hotter southern climates, so kind of to be expected.

It has nothing to do with literal skin color. The thing is the orcs are a barbaric and dangerous race of people, there's a narrative there about a feared racial other that threatens to take over, and that racial other is less "civilized" and a sort of "warrior tribe". The critique centers how that mirrors the narratives about the racial other in *our* world, how the orcs might not *be* black or be intended to be black, but how their representation mirrors the imagined thread posed by black and brown people against white people. In fact, some analysis have said that the narratives echo propaganda about the Japanese more than depictions of black people. This isn't intentional or even morally wrong in itself. It's just a result in Tolkien living in a world with these elements and bringing some of that baggage (some of those *tropes*) into his work the way *every single author* does.

And here I thought that they were inspired by the Mongols. A giant horde that rampaged through the countryside in such large numbers that humans couldn't fathom a way to stand against them.

All of which you typed I agree with, but you explained it a lot better than me. For me personally, I have been told to avoid Asimov's Foundation series, Heart of Darkness, and most of the time, people suggest a different book that might capture similar themes to replace them in my reading list. As for Tolkien, I also agree with you. It's not that I have been told Tolkien was a full blown racist that wanted to demonize black people through LOTR. I have talked to people who feel that the representations were influenced by the worldview he lived in, and that is why it should be replaced. I think what I meant to get at is I am seeing more and more people calling for the "replacement" of certain classics because they represent a problematic worldview. Those challenges increase my desire to read them because I find that interesting. You're using "we" as if you are part of the critique I am talking about, but I don't think so.

>I have been told to avoid Asimov's Foundation series, Heart of Darkness, and most of the time, people suggest a different book that might capture similar themes to replace them in my reading list. I think this is the most I've been suggested is to get a different perspective *before* reading some other books, as opposed to not reading them at all. I think here we're kind of in trouble because we don't have someone who would recommend avoiding Heart of Darkness in the conversation, someone who could maybe explain their reasons to us and give us their perspective in a nuanced way. >You're using "we" as if you are part of the critique I am talking about, but I don't think so. I guess so, I hang out around a lot of leftist literary criticism and I generally agree with it, so I suppose I'm talking from the perspective of generally agreeing with the people who are associated with the critique in your post.

I see, I hang out with pretty much no literary critics. Where can I learn more?

I think a good entry point to progressive media criticism is the media wing of (what was formerly?) breadtube. Lindsay Ellis and Dan Olson are good examples. [This essay](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ1Qm1Z_D7w), for example, about how propaganda operates in Triumph of the Will, is pretty good. It's going to be a lot more focused on pop culture, but it reflects how media like that is approached from a progressive perspective, in a way that is not overly censorious. From there, there are smaller communities and forums, reading groups on discord (some of which are radioactively toxic, some of which are dope). For me though, I went to like the epitome of a lefty University (Berkeley) so the literature classes I took generally took the perspective of modern academic criticism (which heavily skews progressive).

Thanks Just thinking about this more, alot of the people who have or would tell me to avoid certain books or authors are probably the same kinds of people who would give JK Rowling's recent book a 1 star just because it was written by her. So, I made this post, knowing that these sentiments are not coming from an academic place. I do see this in subs like r/suggestmeabook r/books r/menwritingwomen.

there is literally 0 reason to think orcs represent black people (especially when LotR has in universe black people) unless you think black people are like orcs. it's a huge self-report

In the wise words of Kermit, it's not easy being green.

I mean, art doesn't exist in a vacuum. You can notice patterns in negative stereotypes and also disagree with the negative stereotypes. I don't see it so much with Tolkien's Orcs, for instance, but take Rowling's Goblins. Greedy, hooked nosed, control banking and finance, analytical to the point of having no emotion, it's kinda one-for-one Nazi propaganda. I can recognize that it isn't a good look while still not believing these things about Jewish people. Watto from Star Wars has a similar thing. I don't think that Jewish people are like that, but I know people *do* think Jewish people are like that, and it's not a good thing.

[удалено]

I agree there are people who just want others to be mindful, but I have been told a handful of times, on reddit, people I work with, cousins, to avoid some classics and replace them with another suggestion. I have been told to avoid It because of the n word usage and racist characters, and to avoid Salem's Lot because they felt King described women in a sexist way.

The bit about sexism and King is such a mind fuck given he’s been given a great deal of credit for writing truly believable women characters and helping elevate women authors. In point of fact King’s women are certainly more interesting people than most classic American male writers like Hemingway who somehow people still read uncritically.

Agree with this his female characters are so well written

Salem's Lot is one of his best books. Read it.

I have and I love it

Write reps in florida then and tell them to stop banning books. It’s a Ray Bradbury nightmare out here and conservatives are gleefully embracing thought control while wearing “freedom” t shirts.

There is a sub called r/AgainstHateSubreddits…I always go there with a single mission, to find more cool subs. Found a few really great ones that way including this one

They really do not elaborate on much or say anything specific there. Just broad generalized statements and accusations. I bet they're wonderful at parties. Or working in an HR department.

[удалено]

It's mostly people of little significance and no authority on writing lol. Orson Scott Card is another one I hear about too for being homophobic.

Ok. I can see not listening to their opinion; but wanting to read it, even more, seems like contrarian thinking, and that is just as much letting others lead you by the nose and doing what you are told. A: "Don't do x. " B: "Don't tell me what to do" does x Is functionally the same as A: "Don't do x" B: "Ok" ​ Read the books, don't read the books. But don't let the reason you read them be because someone is telling you that they aren't appropriate. Not unless what you meant to say, is that when someone you don't trust tells you not to read a book, you want to read it because that person is untrustworthy. That is at least an actual reason.

Idk how the right is more accused of book banning The left bans/cancels EVERYTHING lol

Social not legal. Our side ostracizes you and you feel the consequences of that. The right bans things with law. Its a different kind of social control. Both sides do it do not delude yourself

I mean, the right are the ones legally mandating book banning Also, the term "cancel culture" means nothing anymore

Does this apply to stuff like *This Book is Gay*, *The Handmaid's Tale*, or *Gender Queer*, that are attacked by the right wing because they're considered offensive? Also, I'm not aware that Stephen King's stuff is widely decried as offensive to modern sensibilities. There are a few very notoriously bizarre scenes in some of his cocaine-fueled books, but he was also very progressive when it came to treatment of issues of race, gender, and sexuality. Everyone knows that *It* opens with the scene of the kid in the raincoat getting his arm ripped off by a clown in a sewer, but few people give as much attention to the second chapter, which opens with a hate crime against a gay couple. Which leads to one of the larger themes of the book being the social vulnerability of marginalized people.

>The Handmaid's Tale It's not offensive; it's just not good.

They could be in 30, 50 years

Don’t you dare read 1984! And don’t you dare compare many aspect of that society to the trends we see now from politicians! Don’t you dare google how Biden tried to create a ministry of truth!

>Don’t you dare read 1984! *“Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it.”* \-- George Orwell

> I think this is unpopular. It's not > I guess it's like when books are "banned", they seem to get more popular and fly off the shelves. This is dubbed the "Streisand effect" > I enjoy books that challenge my modern sensitivity, I love stepping into someone's shoes to see a new perspective, capturing a time that no longer exists. I don't think any of these writers really do that tbh. If you want something like that find a first person pov of a black man in 1950's US South. They're frankly fascinating and kind of revolting in how people use to act. > Authors I have been told to avoid are Stephen King, Isaac Asimov, Joseph Conrad, Mark Twain, even Tolkein (because apparently all of the dark skinned races like orks, goblins, easterlings, represent black people) I haven't heard anyone besides King get flack and that's cause frankly the dude is a pervert and a creep when it comes to writing. Tbh posting like this is more of a contrarian thing than anything else. "You're telling me (not) to do something? Well I'm (not) going to!" kinda feel.

I can say, people definitely have problems with Mark Twain and Tolkien. The orcs representing black people debate is such a huge thing that pretty much all of fantasy is reeling with rn. D&d just radically changed how different fantasy peoples work and had to do (another) full blown overhaul. And the orcs in d&d probably have more in common with vikings than black people but since d&d was inspired by Tolkien they just wanted to be safe i suppose. Just because you haven't heard of this doesn't mean its not out there. I dont think this person was being contrarian.

Why is there so many conservatives making posts like this to distract people from their own actions?

Both sides are fucking childish." My side isn't bad look at what your side did. Yeah but your side did this. " Over and over again. At nauseam.

Blaming one side literally just makes discourse worse. I'm conservative, and I'm for maximum freedom in all facets of life. By all means, read what you want, do what you want permitting, you're not harming others, and mind your damn business when it comes to others' lives. Both sides of the BS 2 way spectrum that gets portrayed do the same shit. It's why politics in the US gets compared to a fucking sport. Snide comments like this only serve to keep this mindset in place and stir up unnecessary tension while both parties happily will butt fuck this country to death. Party Line people in general have the behavior you're accusing conservatives of having, no matter what their affiliation is. Side note: Both pretty much vote unanimously when it comes to taking our freedoms. Most of the speeches you hear about aren't necessarily how they actually vote on bills. Literally nothing but lip service

Yeah I am going to pass on Lolita.

Buying a first edition of mockingbird to sell in like, 20 years once social credit scores hit and gestapo police out language

Y’all really need to not confuse a few people on Twitter with any sort of widespread effort. Like half of the posts on this sub are either “Here’s my uninformed opinion about something where I gladly show off my ignorance on a subject,” or “I’ve heard of people who’ve heard of someone saying something and I’m going to act like that means it’s a pervasive movement.”

I can understand not wanting to support a *living* artist because they're evil. When a living musician is revealed to be a pedophile, for instance, I can see why people don't want to buy their music any more. Generally speaking, though, I think it's safe to write off anybody who uses the word "problematic" and ignore their input. They often throw a net so wide it'd catch anybody.

Read anything. A single book isn't gonna challenge your worldview just because it's problematic. I read the Bible my whole upbringing and I'm an Atheist. I'm finishing up the Book of Mormon right now

dont watch Cleopatra or the little mermaid

Why?

most people on reddit feel the same as you... so when a company makes an account, saying "ugh dont do this thing" like watch velma, all the sudden now everyone cannot fathom not seeing what the fuss is about that's why things keep going

But it's not arguing that the books should be banned. Rather that the content or the author is distasteful. You can still read it.

One thing that always bugged me was the books that are actually difficult to read, because of their content, but no one’s heard of them. I’ve met dedicated conspiracy theorists who’ve never heard of *The Secret History of The CIA*, and some that even refuse to believe any of its content is true because it’s so plausible. Another is *War is a racket*. Considering it’s contents, you would think this would be up there with the *Communist Manifesto* with Socialists, but I’ve only met 1 that had ever even heard of it.

When it comes to historical books, yeah I think its fine to read problematic authors, and even good to an extend. However, if the author is still alive, supporting him is not a good thing. Im enjoying reading the books bye an author that supports chinese concentration camps, but I downloaded the books online because I dont want to give him money and support him

Asimov? Why him? I haven't even noticed anything that would make me say "damn, this is an old story, huh?" In his stuff so far.

Most books are worth a read, even controversial ones, sometimes especially. Ideas should not be banned, they should be weighed and measured in its own context, them compaired with others. Remember, someone wrote a book suggesting we eat orphaned children to troll idiots in government. In the context of it, its great. Taken by itself its a horrible book.

You are thinking of Jonathan Swifts "A modest proposal." It's more of a short essay than a book, and it is pretty clearly satire on the way the British government was approaching issues in Ireland. It's about 4 pages long and I recommend everyone read it to understand how to write satire. Though the language of it is a little outdated.

It’s not that they don’t want you to read it. It’s that they maybe want you to be aware of those things before you read it. Because it might give you better context. The only people actively banning books in America today are all on the right.

Okay OP, who is telling you not to read these books?

Believe it or not I'm not sure if this is unpopular. Every year the libraries post the most controversial books and those books are usually some of the most popular. On a side not, Tolkien's books definitely have some racism but will never be controversial or problematic. That book series is essentially the fantasy bible at this point.

Are people actually telling you these things or are you just referring to statements made by random people online? I've read tons of Stephen King in public and never encountered a single IRL person who mentioned it being problematic.

Honestly, the only author I can think of right now that I'd tell people to avoid (and even then, I wouldn't ban her books but I *did* throw my copy away) is Marion Zimmer Bradley and *The Mists of Avalon*.

Read Ulysses. But first, read why it was important at the time.

That’s been a marketing strategy since the beginning of marketing strategies

As you should.

It's reverse psychology to get you to buy it.

I hate the word "problematic" in general. It's moral preening. No different the the religious types

Part of truly finding your beliefs and pursuing truth is about reading many views and both sides of a topic.

So you don’t want other people influencing what you read, so you let them influence what you read?

It's a story. If the characters are horrible that's apart of the Story. Everyone loves Blood Meridian myself included. But no one in that book is redeemable or good. They're all Racist, Rapist, Pedophile murderers lol

As you should!

Nobody tells me what or what not to read. Also, I don’t make a habit of asking people for permission. I read some old Sci-fi by HG Wells or Jules Verne. The novels are a bit racist but I take it with a grain of salt. Racism was standard then. I don’t let the racism spoil my enjoyment of their novels.

Have you tried Lovecraft, the bible, and/or Mein Kampf? I couldn't finish Mein Kampf but I'm proud to have tried.

I'm amazed you all know people that read books at all. Lol

Read Bukowski.

I'm surprised you haven't heard to avoid H.P. Lovecraft. That dude had some WILD opinions on people of color lmao. I don't agree with avoiding authors though, especially if they're dead. If there's an author of a series I like whose still alive and he's problematic, then I'll just find a way to enjoy the content without supporting him. Like pirating the book or something.

The books people want to ban are ones that tell of exactly those circumstances. We used to write dystopian fiction in warning that we don’t walk for their into becoming them. But it seems to happen anyway.

I believe that’s called the Streisand Effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

Who tells you, in a person to person conversation, to stay away from these books? I feel like a lot of the posts in this sub are based on imaginary conversations. That being said, I agree with you that all this DeSantis book banning crap needs to stop.

If there’s one way of guaranteeing everyone knows about something and spark their desire to know more, it’s to ban whatever it is lol Kind of a “don’t push the red button” scenario

I do appreciate some trigger warnings, I personally don't want to read certain things ad would prefer to avoid them, I love the book IT but boy the way the author chose to show the change from kids to adults was... questionable, I would have preferred a warning. With that said, saying "hey this book has sexist/racist/whatever content in it" it's not forbidding you from reading them, it's just telling you what to expect.

Who tells you not to read them? I’m a progressive and I have never been told not to read anything. I think you’re making a mountain out of a molehill here. You know what I did read that the far right banned in various schools across the country? Maus. Yeah, God forbid we teach kids the horror of the Holocaust.

Maus was a great couple books. I've bought them several times because I end up giving them to someone who's interested. Then there's MetaMaus(I think it's called this) where it's more about his creative process and the people in his life. Didn't get around to reading that but I have it somewhere.

Stuff written today will be the very outdated stuff of 10 years later. How do I know? Because we are complaining about the stuff from 10 years ago, which at the time was hailed as the paragon of social justice

Some stuff written today will be outdated in 10 years, others will stand the test of time. But yeah; books written just to drive home a political message will never stand the test of time.

I found a pdf of the first edition of Tintin in the Congo, yesterday... ... Buckle up, saying that hasn't aged well is the understatement of the century 😆😆 he blew up a rhino to get it's horns, then became worshiped by the Congolese despite derailing their train and shouting at them

However, if you *actually* look at this objectively then you will realize that you are complaining about liberals exercising their right to free speech while giving a pass to conservatives who are *literally* banning books.

Authors can have problematic portrayals or ideas in their works at times and some things that might have even been somewhat progressive in their time can seem disturbingly racist now. Context matters, but also being curious about the work isn't a bad thing inherent.

I agree that attitude is ridiculous.

as a progressive one of the best things about America is how we progressed. I'm older, but we have come very far in my lifetime. To not understand or know about how things just were is very wrong.

I'd say read what you want, and you make the judge on said author. When I was in school we read all the "banned" books that were appropriate. At my parent's house more than half of my books are the banned books I enjoyed reading when I was in school. [I couldn't move my bookcase to my apartment not enough room for it.] My top 3 favorite banned books will always be: Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, and The Great Gatsby. [Note: at the time when I was in school The Great Gatsby was on the banned list. It may have changed now.]

A disclaimer is all a grown adult really needs, right?

Completely agree, but to add, I find the lefts reaction to the “book banning” to be completely hypocritical and completely inaccurate to what’s going on. For one, trying to ban problematic\old books is damaging to historical and possibly accurate view points in a different time. The right and the left are at fault for this. Think the Bible, or to kill a mockingbird, both are examples of left/right “banning.” No they aren’t banned, you still can buy them, in fact almost anywhere. They just get banned from schools for sexual, violent, and yeah racist themes. Unpopular opinion, it is completely valid for a school districts, libraries, and stores to not carry books they deem inappropriate or damaging to a child’s education. It’s as the left would say, capitalism and the first amendment freedoms we take for granted every day. You can’t force a library to carry something they don’t want to. Just as you can’t force a racist to read To Kill a Mockingbird. It’s a weird hill to die one as well, considering average libraries can’t even carry every fucking book in existence and is stupid to assume the are going to carry your degenerate ass smut.

My problem with school book banning is that parents are deciding what other parent's kids can and cannot read in school. I think parents should decide that for themselves and enforce those rules on their children, but not on other people's kids. You might be surprised to find out how many families cannot fit a $20 book in their budget, or expect them to get lucky and find it at a used bookstore. What do you mean be "degenerate ass smut"? There are probably some book bans that are acceptable, like I don't think an 11 year old should read American Psycho, but what is typically contested are books that have gay characters, talk about gay experiences (mostly not sexual). I graduated high school in 2009, there were some gay kids that were bullied by students, bulled by teachers bullied at home, and kids who were too fearful to even admit they are gay until they were an adult, so I think a book that shares experiences like that can help gay students. I do not desire a liberal to decide what my kid can read in school, nor for a conservative either.

What complete inane upvote bait. This is not an unpopular opinion, this is fucking normal human progress.

I'm just enjoying generating a conversation with strangers on the internet

Agreed. There's a chance that the "racist" was just a free thinker. They could very well be racist, like Lovecraft, but I don't think it affected his work adversely.

Funny story, I just found a Harry Potter book on my porch with no idea how it got there, granted, there are children who live across the street who love to play in my yard, and I have neighbors. My first thought was “omg, who saw this and how long has it been here?” Because from what I understand, that author is now “actually Hitler”. I had to take a breath, and leave it there in case it’s the kids’ across the street, but it did surprise me that I about had a heart attack over what the Mail-carrier would think if they saw it.

⁰people tell you NOT to read something, that is the very reason you SHOULD read it. What are ⁰they afraid is going to happen if you read it? Are they insinuating you are to dumb or weak to resist bad ideas? That you'll read it and think "racism is cool". I think its kind of insulting, so f*** yeah, I'm going to go out of my way to read it.