/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21774614]

What the fuck is going on?

The far left are falling over themselves to cancel, censor nd edit books (see the recent Roald Dhal fiasco). The far right are chomping at the bit to ban books and shut down public libraries? (Pic related). And yet there never has been a generation who are so ambivalent about reading as the current crop of kids. It's tik tok, other social media, black pop culture, vidya and anime that turns them into degenerates and troons.
Why have all the "culture war" retards got such a hate-boner for books when kids are watching music videos that look like softcore pornography where the frontman is "niggering" and "motherfucking" everything in sight and boasting unbiden about getting his dick sucked and becoming a 1 man crime spree.
Books are the least of your problems.
Is it just some kind of symbolic, virtue signaling shtick?

[Anonymous No.21774619]

>>21774614
Books are an enigma. It's about the idea of the info being out there

[Anonymous No.21774626]

>>21774614
No books are banned.
You can buy them all easily.
Stop trying to groom kids.

Sage and /thread

[Anonymous No.21774634]

>>21774626
You're part of the problem if you think there is no problem.

[Anonymous No.21774640]

>>21774626
/lit/ is primarily composed of low level bait threads nowadays from what I can tell

[Anonymous No.21774647]

>>21774614
I don't care.

[Anonymous No.21774658]

>>21774634
>they are banning books!

[Anonymous No.21774664]

I'd say it's partially symbolic. Most of those from the right wing who are trying to ban books are from a generation when books still mattered, particularly in schools. Books still matter in schools, so that's the realm in which they're pursuing this policy. It's out of concern for 'the kids' (not really).
Same goes for 'sensitivity readers' on the left wing who are censoring books. The purpose they serve is to inflict current (read: their) political standards on young readers. They're not censoring John Grisham books. Might be a stretch to claim, but a lot of these people are very much into modern literature, so they're worldviews are coloured by the schlock that gets pumped out today. Harold Bloom saw the writing on the wall with that.
It's an ideological war and books are the battlefield, there's as many facets to it as there are to contemporary online discourse. We both win and lose if we don't actively participate in it.

[Anonymous No.21774665]

>>21774658
They're also defunding public libraries and trying to censor punished work after the author has died

[Anonymous No.21774683]

>>21774665
>they are trying to censor books!

[Anonymous No.21774688]

>>21774665
I can literally go in any book store and buy Naked Lunch or Tropic of Cancer. A couple children’s books get edited in a way to not offend children and retards lose their mind

[Anonymous No.21774701]

>>21774683
They're also burning them as part of macabre, public spectacles. But you stick your head in the sand if it makes you feel better son.

[Anonymous No.21774709]

>>21774614
Children's books are the first frontier. They'll edit the books in new editions and update any digital editions. They can't erase pirated copies or private libraries, but most normies don't have full shelves and don't know how to pirate. The unthinking g masses will accept the new versions.

This will spread to adult novels, starting with genre fiction like James bond. From there it will progress to nonfiction and finally the classics. Many of the classics are easy enough to fix with new "translations." If it's an English language classic, they will "restore" the text or some other euphemism for reducing the difficulty of reading older english.

Eventually "experts" will be split on which version is truer to the original. By that time we'll be effectively detached from the past. Texts will reflect the politics of today. They will bend gradually toward whatever is favorable for the new ruling class.

Movies and music will follow. We can edit/deepfake/dub etc over anything that currently exists, and our ability to do so convincingly is only increasing with time.

The author is not only dead, but he will soon be erased from history.

[Anonymous No.21774720]

>>21774701
>here is a photo from 22 years ago of people burning Harry Potter books!
>burning books is the same as banning and censoring!

[Anonymous No.21774727]

>>21774720
>>21774720

[Anonymous No.21774739]

>>21774709
not with a bang, but with a whimper

[Anonymous No.21774740]

>>21774688
Didn't know the PMRC was still around. Maybe attach some Parental Advisory stickers on books next?

>A character is described as fat? Dear, God, the children will kill themselves over reading such a thing.

Incel vibes.

[Anonymous No.21774744]

>>21774688
I don't follow? Are you saying it is ok to censor some books but not Naked Lunch? Why specifically do you draw the line there?

[Anonymous No.21774759]

>>21774744
Because "muh kids"

[Anonymous No.21774766]

>>21774759
Ian Fleming James Bond books aren't children's books. So no, that doesn't explain drawing the line at Naked Lunch.

[Anonymous No.21774770]

>>21774740
I have children, bub
>>21774744
There are no banned or censored books. Children’s books from over decades ago are public domain and someone can do with them as they wish. You can still get the original anyway

[Anonymous No.21774773]

>>21774770
>Children’s books from over decades ago are public domain
No they aren't. Don't lie to support your arguments.

[Anonymous No.21774803]

>>21774773
You gonna cry if a movie producer takes liberties with a Brothers Grimm story?

[Anonymous No.21774814]

>>21774614
It’s “champing at the bit”