It's absurd that books that invoke strong sentiments should be banned...isn't that what defines good literature to begin with? If the book provides no message, invokes no emotion, and takes no stance, what would entice a reader to pick it up? By banning books that come off strong, you're banning the books that should be read, and leaving the meaningless literature on the shelves. What kind of logic is that?
As for slaughter house five and it's potential to offend: at any street corner the feeling of absurdity can strike a man in the face (Camus). I seem to have been struck. It reminds me of Baglole saying, "Happy Winter-Holiday-Festival-Season" or how people on youtube have to apologize to mac users for using a PC and to PC users for using a mac. It's tragic both on the flaming end and the apologetic end.On top of that, all the parts that were deemed inappropriate were things that really happen or happened or clearly opinion. If Vonnegut was lying through his teeth or committing some heinous, calumnious act, then fine. But he has a right, like any of us, to spout opinion (sensical or otherwise). Banning or censoring his book on the basis that his doesn't correlate with the public or the government is absurdity in itself.
Besides, in a book that delivers truth, banning it only further proves his point.
-ceci
The ending of this post really speaks to the reality of censorship: if the idea, text, image etc. is so worthless, why not let it fail on its own?
ReplyDelete