[everdrive]

Lists of banned books are often quite disappointing, and I think they fall into a few categories:

- Books that are simply bad books and in addition to being bad take an aggressive, political bent. (eg: the handmaid's tale)

- Books that seem relatively anodyne, and it's not clear why they were banned. (eg: the perks of being a wallflower)

- Books that governments might have feared in the old days, but are now much less threatening than other more readily-available material. (eg: 1984)

I still think, even in these crazy, censorious times, that people who love banned books list are (intentionally or not) hearkening back to an older time when a centralized body could actually prevent access to information. Instead, modern book-banning feels much more symbolic. ie, "we do not approve of this book!" rather than effective. Anyone can buy the book on Amazon, or pirate it for free, or find countless video reviews which contain its ideas. And importantly, find many, many more extreme, subvesrive, rebellious, etc. ideas for free online.

Of course I do not support the banning of the books, but I think sometimes once a book is banned this act gives the book power -- in more senses than one. Less discussed is that the fans of the book often believe it to be better than it actually is, merely for being banned.

[runako]

> ... prevent access to information. ... or find countless video reviews which contain its ideas

Popping in to point out that novels are not "information" in the sense of being lists of facts or ideas. The medium is part of the message. That's why novels can be banned but a list of the facts/ideas are often not.

Reading an AI summary of a novel is not even roughly equivalent to reading the book. (Before AI, there were handwritten summaries like Cliff's Notes that served the same purpose of allowing a person to gain a superficial understanding of a book.)

For example: one could list the key facts of _Roots_ (banned in school libraries in the author's home state of Tennessee in 2026) and not convey the points of the book, which is embodied in the totality of the work. Incidentally, _Roots_ was banned for integral parts of the message of the book.

[everdrive]

I think that's a really fair point. A full novel will give you an emotional impact that a list of facts will not provide. A beautifully-told story can convince (at least some people) better than any argument.

I'd still hold that you can just get ahold of books these days if you want to, but your point stands that the mere spread of ideas is not equivalent to really reading the whole book.

[guilhas]

The banned book of the TV hit series The Handmaid's Tale. Watch it tonight on Prime Video!

[nottorp]

> Books that are simply bad books and in addition to being bad take an aggressive, political bent. (eg: the handmaid's tale)

Handmaid's Tale is actually a pretty decently written book for a dystopia. You just need to like dystopias.

[the_af]

> Books that are simply bad books and in addition to being bad take an aggressive, political bent. (eg: the handmaid's tale)

Weird example. The Handmaid's Tale is quite good.

Edit: wow, downvotes for stating a book is quite good. HN at its worst.

Edit 2: in fact it's so bizarre, also seeing other commenters here downvoted for saying Handmaid is a good book, that I struggled to see the reason for the ire. I'm not from the US, mind you, so it took me a while to add 2 and 2 and remember Atwood and Handmaid are in the current political climate of the US an anti-Trump stance. So that has to be the reason. Saying Handmaid is a good book implies you're anti-Trump and therefore invites downvotes (but also upvotes from the other camp, I'd guess). Wow.

[john_strinlai]

i find that whenever walking into an HN post about books (or, oddly enough, anything regarding dark matter or dark energy), you are in for an absolutely wild ride of voting.

[jnovek]

“The Handmaid’s Tale is a bad book” is a wild take to start with.

“I still think, even in these crazy, censorious times, that people who love banned books list are (intentionally or not) hearkening back to an older time when a centralized body could actually prevent access to information.”

You don’t think a school library can prevent access to information? Poor people exist.

[everdrive]

I figured my chosen examples would be the least popular part of the post. :)

I just don't think you can prevent access to information the same way, though. There will be at least one smart phone in the house. There will be friends and relatives with smartphones, with computers, etc.

A poor person who lacks the resources to query on youtube for videos or wikipedia for research will also not be able to sit through a full-length novel.

[edit]

In the 1960s it may yet have been true (despite radio and shortwave) that if your local libraries and shops did not contain a book -- if your friends had never heard of its ideas -- that you would truly remain ignorant of some of the subversive ideas out there. Things just do not work that way these days. Ideas spread faster and farther than ever. You really cannot prevent the spread of information the same way.

At best, you can create a culture of censorship around certain information, which is what I believe modern book-banning does. My quibble here is that people seem to treat book-banning as if it's 1890, and the ideas are being killed due to lack of spread. In the modern world, book banning is symbolic and helps to identify ideas as subversive and unwanted -- but they are NOT out of reach.

Again, I do not support book banning whatsoever.