[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 75 KB, 800x800, the-dolorous-passion-of-our-lord-jesus-christ-anne-catherine-emmerich-hardcover-baronius-press-800x800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866671 No.3866671 [Reply] [Original]

Contemporary controversial books.

And I don't mean books promoted as controversial, such as American Psycho (I found far worse in 19th century literature), I mean books that are actively shunned, difficult to obtain, or in any way banned in places like Europe (banning Salinger because of swear words doesn't count as controversial).

Being any good is mandatory: you can't post drivel as there is no real controversy unless the material is efficient and dangerous to some ideals.

Pic semi-related: it only became controversial because Mel Gibson used it for his Christ movie.

>> No.3866673
File: 29 KB, 300x300, renegade_history.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866673

This is as good as I can think of in terms of contemporary.

It claims that slaves had it good: music, sex, less hours of work than free men, and that the Union wanted them free mostly so they could "civilise" them because they were profoundly shocked by their lifestyle of music and orgies.

>> No.3866679
File: 36 KB, 352x547, meinkampf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866679

"

"There is no doubt that the world will some day be the scene of huge battles for the existence of mankind. In the end, the craving for self-preservation alone will triumph. That stupid and cowardly group of humanity that thinks they know more than everyone else will find their humanitarianism melts like snow in the March sun when they face destruction. In eternal battle, mankind can find greatness; in eternal peace, it will find destruction."

>> No.3866682
File: 12 KB, 250x377, HitlersSecondBook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866682

Controversial because virtually never mentioned.

>> No.3866685

>>3866679

"A healthy relationship only exists when the nutritional needs of a nation are met through its own territory and soil." (p.520)

Imagine if that was law for every country. Unemployment begone and no more market abuse from our productive powers.

>> No.3866688

Come on, /lit/, you have to know some controversial material.

>> No.3866690

>>3866685
Imagine if Hitler followed his own prescription.

>> No.3866697

>>3866690

He did, and Germany had more food to eat than England; this was especially visible in their respective soldiers.

>> No.3866704

>>3866697
Er, no brah, his economy was so unstable and inherently parasitic that he literally had to invade multiple countries just to keep it above water.

>> No.3866714

>>3866685
>own territory and soil

Well, this is only possible with Hitler's defintion of "own".

>> No.3866719

>>3866704

Similarly, we need China and a whole host of third world countries to live the way we live.

Hitler was just honest about this and considered it part of life.

We do no different thing today, it's just more subtle, but not better.

Fighting compared to enslaving children to make our shoes, forced by their own parents and nation, I'm not sure what's best.

>> No.3866722

>>3866714

>own

Land that belongs to you, land that you can defend. Whether you took it from someone or not doesn't matter: all land was taken from someone.

>> No.3866731

>>3866722
And if the nutritional needs of a nation aren't met through its own territory and soil, the nation just needs more own territory and soil?

This is bullshit logic.

>> No.3866734

>>3866719
True. Hitler couldn't have dreamed what the first world led by the USA has achieved. It's not sustainable though, as he discovered.

>> No.3866738

>>3866731

It's called Lebensraum, or "living room", living space. It's why Nazis wanted to conquer Russia and more.

It is what we have done, though, by other means. Commercially, this is exactly what we have done and keep doing.

>> No.3866739

Well the obvious one is the Satanic Verses by Rushdie. He literally went into hiding over that book.

>> No.3866740
File: 9 KB, 182x278, index.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866740

>> No.3866742

>>3866739

That was only "controversial" for fundamentalist Muslims.

It doesn't count. There's nothing controversial in it apart from that, and even that is debatable. Nobody was able to explain why Muslims were mad.

>> No.3866745

>>3866740

Explain.

>> No.3866748

>>3866742
Yeah it was a ridiculous overreaction, but it still was hugely 'controversial'.

>> No.3866752

>>3866748

But it wasn't. If anything, the fatwa was controversial, but the book itself wasn't.

>> No.3866764

>>3866752
Well, yeah I guess your right. The actual content of the book was entirely innocuous.

>> No.3866791

Sounds like c/lit/lickers don't read much outside the mainstream...

>> No.3866805

>>3866791
How can a book be controversial if it's not mainstream?

>> No.3866809

>>3866805

It can go against the interests of the mainstream. Mein Kampf is controversial in every country where it's banned: it's not mainstream because it's not even on sale.

>> No.3866818
File: 428 KB, 902x1418, the-coming-insurrection[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866818

Controversial if you're Glenn Beck.

>> No.3866819

>>3866679
Snow doesn't melt in March in Russia, Nazi dog.

>> No.3866820
File: 21 KB, 329x500, Thegame.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3866820

>> No.3866824

in our society you can publish whatever you want

there are no banned books

>> No.3866825

>>3866819

Now we know why Nazis invaded Russia so early!

>> No.3866842

>>3866809
Except that's not what controversial or mainstream mean. I realise you defined controversial as that in the OP, but you're misusing mainstream because of it.

For a book to be controversial it has to cause controversy, so if it's unknown (not in the mainstream), it can't be controversial. The fact that Mein Kampf is banned doesn't make it particularly controversial, and everyone is aware of it so it's quite mainstream. Harry Potter has caused far more recent controversy.

Look, if you want to know if anyone has read any banned books, just ask. Don't pretend that banned books are not mainstream or are necessarily controversial, because it makes you come across even more like an edgy adolescent than you do for asking about banned books in the first place. Go back to reading the anarchists cookbook or something by LaVey.

>> No.3866847

>>3866842
>so if it's unknown (not in the mainstream), it can't be controversial

If a tree falls in a forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?

Yes.

Popularity has zilch to do with being controversial or not. Think in terms of ideas, not stats.

>> No.3866849

>>3866673

This is an example of a book that's controversial and far from famous.

>> No.3866855

>>3866853

It's a history book... Are you challenged?

>did you know you can buy James Joyce in any airport?

>> No.3866861

>>3866855
its a generic airport non-fiction "shocker"

or if you live in europe those are also popular with train station book shops

>> No.3866866

>>3866847
No, it doesn't. It creates sound waves but sound is qualia and only exists when you hear it.

I agree, popularity has very little to do with how controversial a book is, but nor does whether or not it's banned or hard to obtain. Getting all butthurt and claiming that since no one has any examples of banned or hard to obtain books everyone's too mainstream is stupid. Most non-mainstream, esoteric, rare or unknown books are not banned.

>> No.3866867

>>3866861

So because it brings something new to the table, it's necessarily false.

>dat Middle Age logic
>burn it

>> No.3866870

>>3866866
>only exists when you hear it.

>it's all in your head
>anything outside doesn't exist

Back to philosophy 101.

>> No.3866872

>>3866870
Qualia only exist in your head ≠ anything outside your head doesn't exist

>> No.3866873

>>3866872

>Buddhism for babies

Get real, faggot.

>> No.3866874

>>3866872

>soundswaves exist whether anyone hears them or not
>you're fucking thick

>> No.3866876

>>3866874

Soundwaves =/= sound

>> No.3866877

>>3866873
What the fuck are you on?

>>3866874
Sound waves do, sound does not. It's the difference between heat radiation and the sensation of heat.

>> No.3866879

>>3866876

>splitting hairs
>being this weak
>implying ancient Greek made a difference between sound and soundwaves

You're fucking autistic.

>> No.3866882

>>3866879

Don't be a sore loser.

>> No.3866945

>>3866866
Sound is the force that allows and determines the characteristics of the perception of the sensation, as well as the perception itself. In the same way that "the universe" is a bunch of stars and space, as well as our perceptions and conceptions of four dimensional reality. unless you embrace all the definitions of sound that might apply in your answer, you're just playing word games. I might just as easily say that, since a "sound" is a body of water in the ocean between an island and the mainland, that a tree falling in the forest couldn't possibly make one.

So does a tree falling in the forest make a sound? The answer obviously, is "yes, and no."

>> No.3866948

>>3866945

Man if I had a dollar for every time white people miss the point of koans...

>> No.3866951

>>3866879
What do the ancient breeks have to do with it? Isn't this a Bishop Berkeley thing?

>> No.3866953

>>3866948
does Bishop Berkeley do zen now too? the guy gets around!

>> No.3866973

>>3866945
That may be, but the OP is still an idiot.

>> No.3866974

Now that the trolls have successfully derailed the thread, let's get back on track: controversial volumes of our days.

>> No.3867100

>>3866882
Nigger, Greeks/Plato didn't even have a word for 'blue'.

>> No.3867105

>>3867100
What the fuck does that have to do with anything?

>>3866974
Go stick your head in a copy of Inspire.

>> No.3867146
File: 11 KB, 179x282, roguestate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3867146

The book Osama Bin Laden said every American should read.

>> No.3867162
File: 34 KB, 478x707, Killing_Hope1[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3867162

>>3867146
This one too.

>> No.3867187
File: 55 KB, 932x960, 8jHcYsx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3867187

>>3866879
the Greeks did differentiate between hearing a sound as the sound itself and hearing a sound as it is produced by some being but I don't get what your point is

Should You Be Laughing At This? is probably the edgiest set of comics I've seen, but I don't know if it's banned anywhere or anything

>> No.3867218

I haven't read it myself so can't attest to its quality, but wasn't The Satanic Verses by Rushdie cause of major controversy? The author had to go in hiding and had to avoid some literary conventions because the people hosting them couldn't guarantee his safety. He was receiving death-threats from, I believe, radical religious groups offended by the novel.

>> No.3867226

>>3867187
the greeks also believed your eyes projected beams which cause them to see.

valueless argument

>> No.3867229

>>3867218
It's fucking unreadable/

>> No.3867251

>>3867226
if that's not true, why is it that are cat's eyes so bright and they can see in the dark?
checkmate polloi

Also, Peter Sotos is sort of controversial on account of publishing child pornography
that one anon had a whole bookshelf of books like that and Photographing Children and some other books that would probably be considered controversial but I can't be bothered to find them; it was in a bookshelf thread

>> No.3867633

>>3867229

Like Pynchon?