You must log in or register to comment.

Fun-atParties t1_j9e8c6z wrote

I have several I'd like to burn out of my memory - does that count?


chunkyvomitsoup t1_j9ffyin wrote

I wholeheartedly support the literal burning of 50 shades of grey. No one should EVER have to be subjected to that affront to language.


Organized_Khaos t1_j9h12n0 wrote

Seriously, I read the first page, just to see what all the fuss was about, and that’s as far as I could get. I’ve never had such an allergic reaction to words. Thank you, Amazon Look Inside Feature, for saving me from borrowing that from the library, much less purchasing it.


chunkyvomitsoup t1_j9h7sn9 wrote

It was so bad and nonsensical I legitimately thought I’d accidentally bought a fake book…Out of sheer perseverance, I made it through halfway of the first book before realising I’d rather pluck my eyes out wishing I was as illiterate as E.L. James.


Organized_Khaos t1_j9h9ry5 wrote

I’m so sorry. I feel your pain. Well, I felt it for a few paragraphs.


Aylauria t1_j9h9kk1 wrote

One of my friends sent me the box set and I was Never read it.


OneLongjumping4022 t1_j9e4nr9 wrote

I've thrown out bad books rather than donate them. Usually they have to be both badly written and unethical, but in the last few years, a new category had shown up, the amateur and completely unedited novel. They're even showing up in the library! Misspellings on every page, an author with no ability or knowledge of language, poorly printed, and a complete lack of editorial handling.


Buttercup23nz t1_j9e5kqw wrote

I held onto an awful book for years because I couldn't bring myself to burn it but it was so bad I didn't want anyone else to pick it up and mistakenly think it was going to be an OK read. Eventually I threw it in the rubbish.

There're been a few I considered writing on the front page 'this book was one of the most boeing/annoying/shallow... things I've ever read hut I can't bring myself to throw it out, so here it is, still existing. I suggest you don't read it.'


OneLongjumping4022 t1_j9e7z1j wrote

In hotel rooms, these books could replace the Gideon bible, which doesn't have the manners to come with that warning.


Buttercup23nz t1_j9e8tmq wrote

Ah, but I don't mind the Bible, at all.


OneLongjumping4022 t1_j9eedgl wrote

That's nice. I read Pratchett and Heinlein to review my ethical guidelines.

Wonder which of us read and consider our touchstone literature more often.

add: Poor Sir Terry


Buttercup23nz t1_j9ehtge wrote

Personally, daily. But this is not a competition, nor a combat. You do what works for you, which is what I do.


OneLongjumping4022 t1_j9g2cql wrote

U can only admire those who raise warriors for Christ, we got us a world to conquer!


justmehere_andnow t1_j9fhs8i wrote

I work in a bookstore and can tell you this has been infuriating the last few years. Quality control in printing has just dropped to near zero in some cases. I think this is definitely a multi-sided issue, but largely comes from a massive rise in self publishing. Lots of vanity presses let you print whatever with minimal work put into it. I’ve seen people mistakenly order $30 books that are entirely made of copy-pasted Wikipedia articles. Accidentally ordering a series that has the same name as the one they’re reading, but is clearly a ripoff. People copying-pasting entire books and making unofficial listings for them on Amazon/etc. It’s gone so out of control that at my store we can’t even accept local author’s works because we don’t know what their quality will be since it varies so much. Don’t get me wrong, some of my favorite books have been self published. But the industry is definitely taking over with a “print whatever you want, don’t bother editing” system.


ActonofMAM t1_j9f79xy wrote

Sometimes they do have good passages, which turn out to be plagiarized from much better novels by other people. Nora Roberts sued hell out of such an author some years ago, and donated the proceeds to some literary charity or other.


Aggressive_Towels t1_j9f1dsr wrote

What's an unethical book to you?


OneLongjumping4022 t1_j9gzr3t wrote

James Frey's work, a lot of the conservative political screeds you find clogging shelves in Goodwill, etc


Nasaboy1987 t1_j9gfo94 wrote

Self publishing on Amazon has brought about so many people that have never even heard of an editor to paperback. Amazon should as least start a service where they can pay to have an editor review the books and recommend changes without taking a part of the copyright.


laurpr2 t1_j9e4o1k wrote

No, for two reasons:

  1. I feel like I should have at least read a given book before advocating for its destruction, and I've avoided all the really controversial/gross stuff out there. I've read stuff I disagreed with, but nothing so offensive that I feel it's unfit for consumption.
  2. I'm fundamentally against book burning as a concept. Everyone should have the right to freedom of the press, not only because censorship pretty quickly becomes a slippery slope, but also because people don't stop having vile ideas just because they're restricted from publishing them. All restrictions do is fan the flames of a persecution complex (justified or otherwise) and hide the discussion from the rest of society.

LoreHunting t1_j9efc5q wrote

Agree with these points.

I would note that there is a significant distinction (that is often lost) between freedom of press and platforming. I would not put the Unabomber’s manifesto in a high school library or go out of my way to encourage people to read it; we shouldn’t encourage high schoolers or people in general to get radicalised by hateful ideologies, and the UK is already seeing the consequences of that. But I do think there is a place for it in the records. There is a place for all written work in the records, be it Nazi rhetoric or weird smutfic.


Organized_Khaos t1_j9h3g87 wrote

Okay, I’m down with that. But then I think the Unabomber’s manifesto, or Nazi files, etc. should be something you really do have to work hard to read. Technically available, but in the “black collection” at an archive, where you have to present yourself in person, show your ID, work directly with an archivist, and look at the material on microfiche. An archive that’s open 11:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m. on Tuesdays. No physical copies to check out, and no different than what academic researchers do with rare works.


scarletseasmoke t1_j9edrdf wrote

There are books out there about how beating babies with canes is good parenting you just have to make sure you don't leave marks others could see. So those get my full purge vote, let's keep some copies for archival and research purposes but let the rest burn. (I'm not even sure how it's legal to sell these)[edit: Now two people mentioned the same title, but I sadly report it's a whole genre, and I meant every single one of them]

There are books with other blatant misinformation urging people to be abusive. I also won't defend those.

Hate speech and incitement with call to genocide / murder / rape / war crimes etc. (Again, I'm not sure how it's legal)

I'm very against censorship in general, especially when it comes to art. Even books I'd throw on a bonfire with my own hands if it's about a few copies as a symbol or protest, I'd not want them banned. But I just can't find an excuse for some nonfiction works.


EvokeWonder t1_j9ekyau wrote

To Train up a Child by the pearls would be one of them. I agree.


Happy_Chick21 t1_j9fpay9 wrote

I agree. To train up a child is a bad one. I confiscated these from my parents so they wouldn't fall into naive hands again. I keep them for use in therapy to unlearn all the programming. It's basically Pavlov's kids enforced with violence starting at 6 months. They detail how to "break a child's will" as early as possible to mold them how you wish. They belong in a museum so we don't forget the outcomes of several adopted children being murdered by over zealous parents following this depravity. Just a few copies then burn the rest.


Nebulous_Tazer t1_j9fxu4x wrote

“I’m very against censorship in general. Now here’s a specific list of the things I would like censored.”


scarletseasmoke t1_j9g8ba4 wrote

Yes it's called an exception. Eg I'm very much against causing blunt force trauma, but I support self defense even if it causes blunt force trauma.


MulhollandMaster121 t1_j9go0qe wrote

'I'm anti-censorship UNLESS...'


scarletseasmoke t1_j9gqqz2 wrote

I'm very anti censorship in general, and I won't be ashamed of not extending that general rule to abuse guides and incitement to harm people when it comes to more nuanced specifics. You may want to defend books that give detailed instructions on how to hit a literal crawling baby so CPS can't prove it because you are more anti censorship than me, but ... I won't want to compete.


MulhollandMaster121 t1_j9hab97 wrote

Right, because you're not anti-censorship. You're only anti-censorship for things you find agreeable.


scarletseasmoke t1_j9hardh wrote

Man I wish the list of things I don't find agreeable was this short. Life would be so much easier.


ThingsLeadToThings t1_j9gsnuy wrote

Was literally composing a comment about To Train Up a Child. It’s criminal that book is still available to the general public. The only hands that should be touching it are child development specialists, therapists, and medical professionals.


anachroneironaut t1_j9efm47 wrote

Blatant misinformation that is directed to vulnerable people can be very harmful. Predatory books by health gurus directed towards ill people and their loved ones.

I have worked in healthcare with cancer patients and their close ones who were given false hope by some alternative medicine books and gurus selling books and supplements/lifestyle advice. Seeing the patients suffering and refuse treatment (even for pain) and slowly slip away, all the time blaming themselves for not responding better to the woo-woo prayers/substances/positive thinking/particular diet/supplements… Seeing them hurting and SO confused and hurt about why they are becoming worse and not better… Some of them even perished from things that a surgical procedure would likely have cured. All of it while lining the pockets of some sociopath with a degree and a book deal.

If it was tough for me to witness, I can only imagine how it was for them and their families living it.

Traditional medicine does not work all the time either. Refusing treatment of any kind is definitely within anyones right! I am not looking for a debate on this. My point here is not about the science being right or wrong, it is about predatory guru-like authors (sometimes using their educational credentials in traditional sciences) using cancer patients to sell books and branded supplements and putting the blame on the patients when the particular “treatment” does not work.

In theory, I would like to burn these books. In practice, I realise and accept that it would be impossible to do in a reasonable way. Also, there is the danger of the slippery slope, controlling free speech and all. But I still want to see those particular books burn.


RhiRead t1_j9ewwxo wrote

Have you ever listened to the podcast If Books Could Kill? Highly recommend it, they pick different ‘airport books’ each week (non-fiction fad books, often woo woo themed) and discuss them and the impact they had.

On the episode about The Secret, they say that the book influenced a woman to give up chemotherapy because she really thought that asking the universe to cure her would work.

I guess burning books like this would be harmful at this point because we need to use them as examples of exactly how junk science can be harmful, but i can’t help but think how many people might have been harmed unnecessarily by books like The Secret.


lucia-pacciola t1_j9f409i wrote

I asked the universe to cure my cancer, and the universe was all like, "I gotchu fam. Check out this chemo shit I cooked up."


anachroneironaut t1_j9eygwx wrote

Yep, that is one of the books I saw influence someone to make decisions that led to their premature death.

I agree with not burning them, definitely. No literal burning of books for me. But figuratively, I want to burn them.

Thing is, I do agree that adults need to take responsibility for their choices, for the information they consume and make decisions from. And information wants to be free. But having seen the chaos and desperation that some illnesses bring, the people profiting from this makes me sick. I have not heard about the podcast, will check it out.


Amphy64 t1_j9g1cwm wrote

I think a further problem is that these books aren't just impacting individual patients who choose to read them, the views spread, they can promote/justify ableism, and it's difficult to get an ableist to take responsibility for the harmful impact of their views/actions.

I'm a victim of medical negligence and have every reason to distrust the medical system itself, but more scientific understanding is definitely the answer, not less. It's not even just the most obvious crystal healing stuff, psychology as a field is horrific for woo, and still, despite a history of medical abuse, holds the influence to be more widely harmful. Having a bunch of misplaced pins through my spinal canal, possibly splitting the cord, and severe life-altering neuropathic pain incl intense burning, I'd at least be tempted to watch the writers of some of these books be added to the pyre and sweetly ask them 'Have you considered that pain is all in your head?'.


boysen_bean t1_j9gbi0r wrote

If Books Could Kill is one of my favorites. I haven’t read any of the books they talk about but its still very interesting. I was in elementary school when the internet was becoming more common. Teachers were so big on “can’t believe whats on the internet, use books instead.” Misinformation is everywhere; something existing in print doesn’t mean it’s true.


leafshaker t1_j9ex6hp wrote

I totally agree. I'm an organic farmer and naturalist, so I'm pretty open about this stuff. That said, I have several friends who have really bought into this stuff. It's so hard to talk them out of it without pushing them further away.

The appeal to nature fallacy is a strong one. It's so sad to see people gamble with their health, and infuriating that publishers are profiting off this. I'm sure some of these authors are genuine, but some must be writing in bad faith, especially those with scientific training.


anachroneironaut t1_j9ezrdu wrote

There is a lot of interesting research and experience about how positive thinking and holistic views and also some treatments influence disease progress and prognosis. It can work well together with traditional/conventional medicine. Or by all means, solely in some cases. But it needs to be an informed decision not influenced by the profit hunger of someone else.

I think following the money can be very elucidating. Cui bono? Just like personal finance books written by people who only got rich writing personal finance books. Adding cancer to it just makes it even more heartbreaking.


leafshaker t1_j9f2jpc wrote

Absolutely! It's a shame that so many boosters for alternative medicine pair it with distrust of conventional medicine. They are often preying on people's bad experiences with the medical industry, and neglect to mention that some of these alternatives are also billion dollar industries!

In the theme of this thread, all those books written in bad faith would be my nomination, though it's impossible to screen for that.


anachroneironaut t1_j9f7yzc wrote

Despite some bad experiences, many people I encounter seem to reason like you and I. This is very good, I think.

“In bad faith” was a good and succinct collective descriptor for books I think deserve to be burnt (though as you conclude, impossible to screen for). I know the expression well, though I did not think of it (English as second language).


spotted-cat t1_j9ffz42 wrote

I’m a Pagan witch and run a blog on Tumblr, and I see posts about stuff like this so often it makes me sick. Not even alternative medicine — stupid things like putting straight up poisonous rocks in your water bottle cause they look pretty. Personally, I practice some herbalism and various aspects of mindfulness but I also take meds daily for mental health issues and I go to therapy, and I go to doctors when nothing else works.

What people don’t understand is that herbalism and witchcraft or whatever is just a supplement that’s meant to be used in conjunction with modern medicine. Witchcraft itself started out as science — herbalism, midwifery, and dream interpretation which is rooted in psychology and symbolism. The rest of it is basically asking for advice and hoping for the best.

I’m really sorry for all the hardship you’ve experienced and I’m really sorry about all the assholes in the Pagan and New Age communities that made these thing happen.


anachroneironaut t1_j9fk3tx wrote

Ah, thank you for your words, reflections and the sympathy! I am still in healthcare but nowadays with less patient contact of that particular kind. I am also what could most closely be described as a hedge druid with some organised training, so you could say I do stand with a leg in each camp. It sometimes makes it easier, but sometimes not. Let us all help each other to the best of our abilities.


Crawgdor t1_j9ewqnn wrote

Those were the only ones that came to mind for me as well, although I think that burning or banning them would provoke a Streisand effect and they would become more widely read for it


anachroneironaut t1_j9eym8v wrote

I think in many countries it is already forbidden to make “health claims“ of a more specific kind. But it seems easy to get around it by insinuation and such. I agree about the Streisand effect.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9excyj wrote

Id say that books that are intentionally predatory/intended as scams should definately go. A raving looney talking about their astral projections fine, but if they dont even believe it? cya.


e_crabapple t1_j9e6o2n wrote

There is no way burning books will ever look like anything but a bunch of nazis dancing around. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Burning it just makes you look like a dangerous imbecile, full stop. (Doubly so if you bought it, and then burnt it.)


ennebt t1_j9e8h2h wrote

I don't believe in banning books, but destroying individual copies u don't want to put back out there is fine. There's probably better ways to do it than burning


jawnbaejaeger t1_j9e569r wrote


The idea of book burnings makes me feel physically ill. There's a long history of regimes burning books and celebrating while doing it.


Necessary_Disk t1_j9ea6qj wrote

I hear you all saying never burn a book, but I don't think any of you have ever had the misfortune of reading All He'll Ever Be.


Hammsammitch t1_j9eph99 wrote

I'm more in favor of improving the quality of education so there are better powers of discernment going around.


OffensiveIdealist t1_j9ebazy wrote

Thinking that the best way to disarm and censor the ideas in Mein Kampf is to burn the book would be quite the irony


AdmiralAkbar1 t1_j9e7z8v wrote

Serious answer: none. While there are valid debates as to when it's proper to introduce such books in a pedagogical context, I don't think that there's such thing as a book so heinous that the general adult public should be outright banned from accessing it.

Meme answer: The Grapes of Wrath. The cast was so unlikable that I found myself silently hoping the strikebreakers would crack everyone else's skulls at the end and bring the story to a mercifully swift end. I refuse to let future generations of high schoolers suffer as I have suffered.


Mr_Metrazol t1_j9f92bk wrote

I once attempted to read Twilight during it's heyday. Halfway through the first book I found myself hoping against hope that a gang of vampire hunters would arrive with wooden stakes and a revolver loaded with silver bullets and put an end to the cast.

Not only did I fail to finish the book I quite literally abandoned it to fate. I just got up from the table and left it sitting in the student lounge as a 'gift' to whatever masochist wanted to punish themselves with it.


Ragadast335 t1_j9e4qvf wrote

None, but if something must be said, any religion book in which is written to hate another religion.


SillyObjectives t1_j9e60cw wrote

I don’t believe in book banning as an idea and would rather see labels slapped on things with historical or social context where needed and I support keeping genuinely harmful things in places where (for example) kids can’t get them or where marginalized groups don’t have to see them openly.

But if I was put on the spot and had to pick one book then it would be one that we had in our local library that basically described de-transitioning trans kids. Not naming it because fuck that book. I read it and cried. It is being checked out by people intending to abuse children.


Pinglenook t1_j9ekkj7 wrote

Depending on how vague the title is, it is also probably being checked out by people just innocently looking for ways to deal with their trans or genderquestioning children, and then possibly corrupting their mind with these ideas. That may be even worse.


Drackar39 t1_j9e8k7y wrote

I mean, universally, every copy? No.

But I personally burn just about every copy of some cult's indoctrination that gets handed to me by a recruiting cultist. I'm up to about a dozen bibles, a couple book of mormon, three bhagavad gita, and a shitload of tracts, fliers, pamphlets, prayer books, etc.


All_the_cake t1_j9e99y0 wrote

Oh, I chuck all of that into the recycling. It could be reincarnated as toilet paper 😂


Drackar39 t1_j9gcd3u wrote

I live in a rural area, with a wood stove. Paper's good fire starter.


AnAngeryGoose t1_j9f6sra wrote

I collect Chick Tracts. I’ve got over half a dozen from outside my local Goodwill and Salvation Army. No Darkest Dungeons yet but I do have one with the “They hated him because he spoke the truth” meme panel.


alwaysrunningerrands t1_j9e9wpd wrote

I give OP the benefit of the doubt in assuming they didn’t mean burning books for real, because that sounds rather metaphorical.

That said, when it comes to literature, what’s one’s favorite could be others’ disdain. And if people begin to trash what they didn’t like, libraries would be empty!


brendanl1998 t1_j9e9n0o wrote

No. Reading ideas you disagree with is important to develop intellectually. People who don’t understand that you don’t have to agree with everything you read need better critical reading skills


aligador t1_j9e598a wrote

Fahrenheit 451


EvokeWonder t1_j9ekwig wrote

No not really, but there was one that I threw in trash can without feeling guilty about was Created to be His Helpmeet by Debi Pearl.


Stralau t1_j9f49u1 wrote

The new Roald Dahl edits. And anything else those Inclusion Ambassadors or whatever they call themselves have laid their hands on. It’s made me so cross.


DafnissM t1_j9e6jkr wrote

1984 gives you all the reasons you need to know on why you shouldn’t ban books, it’s better to teach why those ideologies are wrong and learn to read critically


Tea_4_thee t1_j9eaumu wrote

Nope, at least not in the way you mean. I have read books that were bad enough that I wanted to see my copy burned but I hate being wasteful so I put them in the little free library instead.

I’ve definitely never wanted to erase the entire existence of a book though.


Redcherry42 t1_j9eg1xt wrote

The bible and the quran. Maybe then we'd stop killing each other over the tiny differences and let people live their lives how they want to, instead of not allowing people to be homosexual etc.


Sopori t1_j9ejaev wrote

Shit you're gonna have to go a lot further than 2 of the multiple Abrahamic faith holy books to get that done.


willsidney341 t1_j9ell8o wrote

Personally, any copy of the protocols of the elders of Zion I came across wouldn’t survive, and someone gave my kids a biblical study guide to dinosaurs once that went in a trash pile rather than goodwill, but mass bonfire, nah. It’s a bit too on the nose, even for tucker Carlson’s drivel.


skinnyfatguyuk t1_j9eoo6e wrote

"Where they burn books, they will, in the end burn people"


sid3271 t1_j9e8r81 wrote

I agree that no book should be burned. If you don't like the topic, the author, plot; etc...just don't read it.


Fictitious1267 t1_j9eaam9 wrote

Orcs was so bad I'd consider it, purely to save others from spending the money and wasting 10 minutes of their life. I bought it for $1, and that was too much.

The concept seemed cool, but who thought it was a good idea to have the prose come from the perspective of an orc as well?

There's a couple of books that intend to subvert history and give their readers a false interpretation of facts (that almost certainly stuck with them) in order to push their flimsy plot along, but I wouldn't ban them. But that's the closest I can think of damaging literature, besides the obvious of pushing certain agendas, which authors are entitled to do.


frozenfountain t1_j9ed67u wrote

Another no from me. Even in the case of overtly dangerous ideas and pseudoscience that makes a case for bigotry (The Bell Curve, Irreversible Damage, etc), burning the books is an overly simplistic solution that would make a martyr of these authors while ignoring the real reasons people are drawn to exclusionary or fascistic ideologies. These tendencies arise out of social inequality, scapegoating, and unexamined fear of the other that won't go away simply with the removal of certain titles. Moreover, I think the words (fictional and otherwise) of cruel and hateful actually offer us a very valuable insight into the draw of certain ideas and behaviours, and therefore leave us better equipped to combat them - in ourselves, too.

I agree very young children should have a certain amount of benign control exercised over what they have access to (ETA: and that this is the responsibility of their carers and teachers, not the state), or at the very least an adult in their lives who'll talk them through anything they read that upsets or confuses them. For the rest of us, I don't believe the potential for someone to make a bad choice should be answered by restricting our choices. It's through conversation that we learn, and unsavory book can make for a great starting point.


Ransom_Doniphan t1_j9emi95 wrote

No. Even books I abhor. As with anything dealing with freedom of speech/expression, hypocrisy rears its ugly head pretty quickly if I make even one exception.

If you believe a book is harmful or awful, don't read it. But that has to be an individual choice. It's really that simple.


hobokobo t1_j9enaog wrote

Quick answer is none, because that’s a slippery slope. I agree that there are books out there with harmful ideas, but maybe we need to talk more about how a lot of people aren’t able to critically appraise information very well and often just accept what they read as “fact”.

Joke answer is the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy because the writing is just SOOOOO bad.


cr0wj4ne t1_j9et121 wrote

No, because I don't think any particular person or political party or government should have the power to decide what is and is not harmful literature. There are plenty of books I think are genuinely harmful, but I'd rather they exist than someone have the ability to burn every book that doesn't align with their religious ideals or whatever.


TwilightZone1751 t1_j9f3nq7 wrote

A person or government could ban or burn every book they deem harmful & it still wouldn’t stop whatever it is they think is dangerous. You have other means to get information other than books.


cr0wj4ne t1_j9f4oq3 wrote

Sure, but this is a question about whether I support banning/burning some books, and that's my answer. I don't support giving any one entity control over what is and isn't harmful.


ThinkerVoyager t1_j9evsgs wrote

I would not burn or ban any book, but there is a difference between a school library, college library, and public library. Not all books should be available in every library. Anyway, good luck keeping books out of circulation when people have access to the internet.


ahkna t1_j9f04hp wrote

This really horrible memoir by this woman who married a violent murderer Jason Staples who brutally beat his female roommate to death because she didn't want to have sex with him. The author called him a "gentle giant". She helped him by marrying him and moving him to a different city in Ontario, giving him some respectability, making people around her think he was a good man. He kidnapped, raped, and tortured two women the first weekend she went away after they got married.

The author proceeded to make every possible excuse for her rapist and murderer husband, cutting off people who thought she was making him out to be the biggest victim of his crimes, complaining about the lack of support for the spouses of rapists while insisting that when it was revealed that her husband had put video cameras in their bathrooms that she be the one who told the victims not the police or victim's services.

Oh, I forgot one of the worst parts. She actually quit her job as a guidance counsellor because the school board insisted on following proper safeguarding procedures and refused to tell her the identity of the teenage son of one of her husband's victims.

The entire book is a narcissistic screed of the highest order and it's a shame that she's used it to propel herself to the front various charities and movements.


Dr_Julian_Helisent t1_j9f08u3 wrote

I Love Dick by Chris Kraus. It's a semi-autobiographical story about how she sexually harasses and publicly humiliates her muse, a fellow artist named Dick. Apparently Dick begged her to not publish the book. So the book itself is a form of harassment. Very gross.


JoshieDoozie t1_j9f4bus wrote

Anything by, or attached to the name "James Pattersson." The literary world wouldn't suffer one bit if they were all put in a big pile and burned to cinders. :)


uninvitedfriend t1_j9f8y2i wrote

I once got a bunch of old Sci fi novels from a basement book sale. One of them was called Firefly by Piers Anthony. I got to a scene of a 5 year old graphically and intentionally seducing an adult, and I stopped reading, ripped up the book, and threw it in the trash. Would have no problem burning every copy of it.


lenaellena t1_j9gd86f wrote

There are lots of harmful diet books I would like to see burned.


ThingsLeadToThings t1_j9gv292 wrote

This might be an unpopular opinion, but any self help book by an author without the appropriate training and credentials. If an author doesn’t have multiple peer reviewed papers on the subject that have been published in reputable scientific journals, then they have no business giving professional psychological, career, parenting, or relationship advice to anyone.

On that note: if you’re a self help enthusiast, do not buy that viral self help book without researching the author first. If all you find is their author website, book interviews, and a few Ted-X talks, then move along.


jryad t1_j9e6hf0 wrote

The Enemy Unmasked or The Secret Terrorists by Bill Hughes.


emmagol t1_j9eafoz wrote

The bible, kuran, etc. All these “books” are the cause of most of human suffering. Joking (not totally). I would never burn a book


OffensiveIdealist t1_j9ec2z9 wrote

Trying to erase the Bible from world literature makes as much sense as doing away with “Greek mythology”. It’s a collection of many different books, spanning many different periods and ideas.


The_On_Life t1_j9etp9y wrote

Never met anyone who used Greek mythology to justify oppressing other people.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9exi09 wrote

You havent heard of the renaissance and european imperialism then lmao

Greeks also did a bit of fun pillaging here and there too.


Bear_buh_dare t1_j9f13go wrote

We're talking about people in 2023 disowning their own progeny and family for being gay based on their special fairy tale book though, not shit 500-1500 years ago.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9hlcid wrote

If people are commiting horrific stuff based on "some special fairy tale" that fairy tale has surely got to be real damn compelling. Wonder what in it might be so powerful.


OffensiveIdealist t1_j9f2syc wrote

Based on a tendency for stupidity and fanaticism that would find alternative inspiration if it didn’t have access to a copy of the Bible. Besides, I doubt the average evangelical nutcrack has read all of the books in the Bible, let alone done so in a historical, comparative perspective (which was the whole point of my original comment).

As with any ideological extreme, it usually doesn’t come from reading too much. Make the Bible vanish (the dozens of books included in that plural, from the cosmology of the first books of the Old Testament to the philosophy of Ecclesiastes) and a dumbed down, alternative monotheistic pamphlet would take its place, with all the prejudice and none of the literary quality. If you think we are “too advanced” in “2023” to come up with something as stupid as the worst in the Bible, but also gray and prosaic, just look at the average enlightened netizen interpreting my original comment as “using Greek mythology to justify oppressing people”. As if the so much of the Bible didn’t share roots with Greek mythology, and so much of the New Testament wasn’t Greek philosophy recycled. 8th grade understanding of Ancient history.


The_On_Life t1_j9f2sxn wrote

You'd think for a subreddit called "books" its users would read more carefully.


thegaybookfox t1_j9ee77v wrote

I actually threw out a book recently because of the writing; I think that banning books that spew horrible hateful ideas should be banned. But the books that are being banned in question should NOT be banned in the slightest.


kevinass t1_j9eiuss wrote

The Giving Tree- a “how to” book promoting, guilt, codependency and resentment. I detest this book. Should be called the blackmail tree.


BagongPahina t1_j9ej1c1 wrote

I can think of a few local books from politicians that are widely known to be written to whitewash their political sins of the past. It's a biography/memoir of a long standing politician where I'm from.

I live in a country where media control is literally an open secret experiment within us citizens. There's literally an activist and writer (a Nobel Peace Prize winner I might add) who explicitly said that our country is a petri dish of blueprints as to how the rest of the world would do the same thing in their respective countries.

While I believe books and its forms of art are crucial to the world, artists and writers are not infallible geniuses that are incapable of spreading misinformation in their own way.

Like Bjork said, "You should never let a poet lie to you". If a writer lies explicit and seek to do harm, I think that can be burned.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9exn1w wrote

Agree intentional lies are the line. Stark raving fascism is one thing but if they dont even believe what they are saying...


TheRisen073 t1_j9ej9eb wrote

Divergent. I had to do an assignment for school and my group had a month to read it before we even started the writing portion. I ended up reading it sixteen times while the person closest to finishing stopped at page nineteen. They all failed, I passed. That, is why you always put aside money to buy Halo books.


wise_ogre t1_j9el9vc wrote

Can't think of any books. Can think of a few authors...


lindysocks t1_j9elq9c wrote

Not burn, but there's definitely some books that are offensive and I wish wouldn't be read uncritically, especially kids lit where you know chances of critical reading is very low. I'm thinking of things like Peter Pan or Pocahontas. There are some seriously messed up things in those. Maybe they can be available for adults as a part of our history and the harmful views that were commonly held.


vokkan t1_j9elqdz wrote

The Alchemist.


NoPerformance5952 t1_j9enrvw wrote

About the only reason I would burn a book is if it was that damaged and unreadable on a physical level, and that I guess I needed the warmth.

Otherwise even with "harmful" books, I can see their use if at least as an example of something. I studied Holocaust denial in grad school (the phenomenon and how to debunk it), so even hateful garbage like that I wouldn't burn.


HermioneMarch t1_j9eo4j3 wrote

Serious answer: no, never. Because even hate filled rhetoric needs to be documented. Example: Mein Kampf. Unserious answer: Atlas Shrugged.


sdurflinger t1_j9eqsxv wrote

Books are a part of history.


CitronOk6191 t1_j9erehp wrote

Anything written by serial killers that gets slipped into publishing markets like the Robert pickton biography that was self published on Amazon that got pulled. I also am not a fan of anything written by Peter Sotos, some of his interviews are interesting I guess if you’re into his music career but a lot of his rhetoric is written in the perspective of the abuser. Gates of Janus by Ian Brady is also garbage. Anything written by my grandfather is also garbage.


ahkna t1_j9f17c9 wrote

Ew, you just reminded me about how Paul Bernardo temporarily had a book up on Amazon.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9exrxo wrote

Nah serial killer written fiction sounds like such an incredible niche that it might be worth reading.


CitronOk6191 t1_j9eyhm6 wrote

There’s a son of Sam law for a reason and if the money isn’t going directly to the victims I’m not for it. But good joke you made!


CitronOk6191 t1_j9eyqgo wrote

You can have all the gruesome fun you want with Issei Sagawa that dude made an entire living out of eating a fellow college student in Paris back in the early 80s. he even made his own pornography where he acted with fellow female actors and then told the female actors about his past crime eating a woman and then recorded their reactions as again, more porn for his personal entertainment. Vice did a whole interview with him. It’s super fucked up.


ThrowawayCult-ure t1_j9f007r wrote

Jeez thats horrifying. Perhaps the gruesome fun is itself, and myself, the problem...


kevinmorice t1_j9eu5dq wrote

Farenheit 451.

Just for the science of it.


DanishWhoreHens t1_j9eu7v9 wrote

Never. Because who decides? Where does it stop? When you burn books you are trying to silence thoughts and ideas and even when those thoughts and ideas are objectively evil we need to understand them if only to stop them propagating through vulnerable populations that are susceptible to misinformation and lies. The answer is to teach critical thinking, not turn certain thoughts into a martyr or a disease whose existence then flourishes, hidden in the dark corners until the infection can no longer be treated without killing the patient.


AnybodySeeMyKeys t1_j9f0kis wrote

Well, House of The Seven Gables. Not because it was particularly controversial, but because it was several hours of my life I'd never get back again.


thelibrariangirl t1_j9f3szr wrote


My army and I are taking notes. We will come after you.


pro-shitter t1_j9f4awj wrote

i think ones that openly encourage people to harm their pets or children and give them a step by step guide should go. also fuck those Epoch Times papers, not even fit to wipe your arse with in an outhouse


MadPiglet42 t1_j9fag8h wrote

What to Expect When You're Expecting.

It pissed me off so much I threw it in the fireplace. 🤣


Suzieqbee t1_j9fgi94 wrote

Can we rip out the pages and recycle?!? My kids doing all their Harry Potter books this week actually.


Thatguyjmc t1_j9fjho0 wrote

the fact that you placed the offence caused by mein kampf and the imagined offense from satanic verses in the same breath is very telling. It tells me you shouldnt have a say on this topic


monkeyhind t1_j9fmgnp wrote

When American Psycho first came out I borrowed it from my local library. I seriously thought it should come with a warning label or be a restricted loan to adults only. But burn it? Nah.


Aspasia21 t1_j9fo8eo wrote

Banning is strong, but I've told my husband if I have any say in it, our child will not read Twilight. Besides just being bad, I don't want my kid to see that kind of glorification of stalkery/toxic/abusive relationships. I worked with a number of kids when those books were in their heyday and it was really disconcerting how they found it romantic. I don't want my kid growing up thinking "I love you so much I want to kill you" is sweet.


TroutMaskDuplica t1_j9fpfxt wrote

I read this YA book in undergrad for a class--"Cosmos Coyote and William the Nice." Worst book the world. Does not deserve to exist. Burn it, and smash the author's hands with hammers.


SpiralSuitcase t1_j9fsbye wrote

About a year into our marriage, my Mother-in-Law's sole christmas gift to my wife and I was a self-help book called "Boundaries" which was ironic for all of the reasons you would think. My wife had been the "golden child" to her narcissistic mother growing up and I was basically the devil incarnate when I took her baby girl. When we finally went no-contact with MIL a few years later, we burned that book.

I can't think of a better time or reason to have done such a thing.


Amphy64 t1_j9fy6bz wrote

Setting aside questions of whether we should literally support book burning, I'd suggest A Tale of Two Cities (and Carlyle's fake history, which it's in part drawn from). Yes, it's much loved in the Anglosphere, it can be very moving (Wilde may scoff, Dickens is good at cheap emotional manipulation), and makes it so easy to gloss over the completely explicit xenophobia that even Orwell seemingly forgot in his essay, not to mention which side our own sane class interests actually fall (the very wealthy middle class readers are not so inclined to forget). This is why it's such an effective work of propaganda, continues to perpetuate misconceptions, and make them darn near impossible to eradicate. And the thing is the reality of this period, the Enlightenment philosophy, the political thought, is still such a live-wire, radical and relevant, capable of blowing the English Establishment sky high, if we were instead getting at it. I honestly think this book has helped contribute to holding us back centuries (if only we had instead absorbed Mercier's idea of a united Franco-Anglo revolution).

I'm not actually saying we should burn it when the revolution comes, that would be less than ideal. But I couldn't be bothered to be all that sorry had it vanished last century, either.


yarnnthings t1_j9g3r1n wrote

Q: is Mein Kampf available in your local elementary school?


DarthDregan t1_j9gb3ju wrote

Political pundit or politician non-fiction if they are written by the politician or pundit while they're seeking office.

Should be replaced with accurate quotes and voting records, unspun.


Its_panda_paradox t1_j9gdj5k wrote

To Train Up a Child. I have never found anything else (and I read smutfic, fanfic, smut, gore-gasm, etc. but that awful instruction manual of how to completely abuse (both physical and psychological /emotional; everything from advocating hitting your literal days old baby with a plastic ruler or flexible tubing, to gaslighting, manipulation, slut-shaming, victim-blaming, forcing forgiveness of abusers, and sexually repressing them to the point they’ll likely have to see a sex therapist before becoming intimate—even with their spouse after marriage) your child from literally the minute they come home from the hospital. It should be piled up and lit aflame, with the awful authors tied to a stake in the center. But otherwise, I don’t believe in banning, censorship, or book-burnings. But that awful book triggered in me some major flashbacks, and genuinely horrified me to the degree I genuinely believe it should not be allowed to be sold until relabeled as either fiction, true crime, or How Not to Treat Your Children.


kompootor t1_j9ghufp wrote

If we can extend to the entire written word, I would unironically, mostly, at least for 99.9% of public access, would want the entirety of Twitter destroyed.

This is not because I think it corrupts the written word, or that I don't think attempts at literature on the medium have not been impressively artistic, or that I don't think it has seen effective use in mass organizing for good cause. But I think it also represents the worst of the past decade's internet in a couple key factors: 1) self-publication without self-scrutiny (and being serious about it instead of doing so on a s***posting forum); 2) poorly (or deliberately, but most likely just lazy) designed algorithms that encourage mob mentality by promoting outside traffic to the most heated polarized arguments and pile-ons; 3) no hysteresis combined with the two points above meaning the stupid stream-of-consciousness crap that a tween-to-twenties posts will follow them for life; and honestly it just goes on, but those are the big ones. Reformed algorithms can improve these issues to some degree, and they recently addressed/acknowledged the hysteresis problem a bit (or maybe just didn't want to keep buying hard drives), but it's still a crapville archive of the worst of internet mass socialization.

A lot of it is endemic to the problem that norms of social behavior on the internet are far behind those that have been established in irl society. I think burning down what someone once called the new Great Library (I feel like someone years ago called Twitter this, but I can't find it -- it's one of those things that was chuckled about at the time, but would be so beyond absurd to even mention now) would be a good symbol, like at the end of Fight Club (yeah, I was an edgy 90s kid and totally unique about it; how could you tell?) when they stuck it to creditors (but it wouldn't in reality do anything since there's several layers of backup records built in).

There are other sites (cough quora cough) that I think should be forcibly shut down but have the text archived for public use, but that's quite a bit different. In other cases I'd want additional legal options to norobots that expand, within reason, the rights of public crawling archiving for sites whose content and value is generated entirely by public users. Again, different, but it's effectively a total disruption of publishers, which if it were done to print publishing would be a chilling affront just like shutting down newspapers.


BugsyMcNug t1_j9gj5oz wrote

This could seem un popular but I think at least one copy of every published book should be kept indefinitely for posterity. Anyone in the future can look back and see where the population is at.


AlivebyBestialActs t1_j9gl3cc wrote

I don't know about burned, but if they go out of print and disappear from our collective memory I think we'd be all the better for it:

Anything Ayn Rand wrote. Her books are the perfect spawning point for selfish shitheads looking for excuses that justify them fucking other people over, and really don't have any merit. She's a shit writer, her metaphors are ham-fisted, oppositional ideas are always presented as the weakest straw-man version of such, and her "heroes" almost invariably wind up as misogynistic 1-dimensional fuck-ups painted as the peak of masculinity. I don't think we'd lose anything important, frankly given their history I think we'd be better off for it.

The only thing influenced by her that's worth anything is BioShock lol.


LordLaz1985 t1_j9gql38 wrote

Nope. I think a lot of books are terrible, but “Laz couldn’t get through them” isn’t the same as “this should not exist.”


Ineffable7980x t1_j9gqtfo wrote

If a book has what I consider to be hateful content, I simply don't read it.


purpleprose78 t1_j9grmp8 wrote

I burned my copy of The Great Gatsby, but that was due to my personal animosity with that book and not any desire to see all copies burned. If I heard one more lecture on the symbolism of the green light, I was going to rage stroke out of my high school desk.


VirieGinny t1_j9h8nfs wrote

Honestly, the Bible. I think the message of Jesus is beautiful, but the way some Conservatives 'use' the Bible is disgusting and goes counter to so many things in the actual text. I am convinced if Jesus came back today he would personally burn all the Bibles himself and start drafting a '2.0' version.


Cognac4Paws t1_j9epvsw wrote

Well, don't send a hit squad after me but I'd gladly burn Handmaids Tale. Hate that book. Couldn't finish it. The story itself isn't the problem. It's the writing.

Also, I read a bit of historical fiction called Catherine the Inquisitor about Henry VIII and Queen Catherine. Dumbest thing I've ever read. Apologies to the author but even historical fiction should be believable and make some sense with what we know about the people.


DunkinRadio t1_j9f2afa wrote

TIL there is another person in this wide wide world that doesn't get all the hype about Margaret Atwood.


SirLeaf t1_j9ezsfw wrote

I used to be very, very against throwing out old books. But I was doing some cleaning the other day and found an Oprah cookbook and I threw it out. I think that’s the only book I ever will throw out


Negative-Appeal9892 t1_j9g3l0d wrote

The entire Twilight series because it's just so fucking stupid.

Anything from Wattpad or Quotev that somehow migrated from the Internet to Books-A-Million.


Bugbear259 t1_j9ge7x1 wrote

After a relative died I threw her Left Behind series on the burn pile rather than donate them. Eons ago in college I threw the Fountainhead against the wall. Only time I’ve ever done that.


wedadd6 t1_j9f0ifo wrote

I feel like banning books because they might be 'offending' is something that needs a real reconsidering because everything is becoming offensive nowadays like never before, something that was completely okay is now being considered hateful and that in my opinion erases the history behind it , behind books and everything.

But in the case of books which are completely pointless and like most of the works these days; sexually explicit and are genuinely a bad example, I think it should be seriously considered before even publishing them.


kittyursopretty t1_j9f45ls wrote

i would say authors like jordan peterson and his ilk deserve to have their books burnt and personally i would gladly suppress their writing. i don’t understand how people are still downplaying the scope of their fascist influence.


tygerprints t1_j9g2paa wrote

The only books I would ever burn are the filthy ones that promote hatred and bigoted violence. They include the bible, the quoran, and all other so-called "holy" texts of all kinds.

Those two dirty fucks Jordan Tiny Peter son and Fucker Carlson, I'd not only burn their goddamn books, I'd burn them as well, savoring every moment of pouring kerosene on their ugly heads and lighting the match and watching their inhuman hides peel off and their bug eyes pop.

To hell with niceness anymore. I'm glad that leftists are radically arming themselves and all too happy to see the right wingers flailing, falling, and dying.

To a new world of gods and monsters, and let's become the monsters that those asswipes really fear the most.


SunshineClaw t1_j9et7l8 wrote

Probably the bible, but I'm a flaming athiest so...


[deleted] OP t1_j9e8oko wrote



OffensiveIdealist t1_j9ebuno wrote

The thing with Lolita is that it’s a waste of time to argue with the puritans who mistake character portrayal with character endorsement. Reading any of its pages at random should be enough to make it obvious that it is incomparably well written and to put the petty moralistic controversy in the foot note where it belongs.

It’s also a shame that the “scandal” made it into Nabokov’s most famous, as, despite being a great book, it is far from his best work.


[deleted] OP t1_j9ec97w wrote



OffensiveIdealist t1_j9ecxkq wrote

If you don’t imagine how the author might separate what they portray and tell from what they endorse, and you can only stomach those stories which you can translate into literal ethical guidelines… Then, well, I guess you can read books about gardening


[deleted] OP t1_j9efekp wrote



hearingthepeoplesing t1_j9efu9m wrote

If you were approaching Lolita expecting that it would be similar to “dark romance” that might be part of the disconnect. The point of Lolita is not the portrayal of “weird kinks” nor to show the central character as “misunderstood”. The point of the book is that it is narrated by a character who is trying to justify something that the other characters in the story, the readers and the writer find (rightly) abhorrent.

I would never suggest that people read Lolita if they are put off by the depiction of child abuse material or upset by it. If you don’t want to read content like that, then absolutely don’t. However, it does a tremendous disservice to the book to say that it’s on Humbert’s side.


manialikely t1_j9f2qkx wrote

How in the world did you get that Lolita was a justification of pedophilia??? Humbert is a deluded and unreliable narrator and you're supposed to be disgusted by him, that's not an endorsement of pedophilia. Nabokov was likely a survivor himself.


[deleted] OP t1_j9f3c7a wrote



manialikely t1_j9f4gwb wrote

I did read your comments... Humbert being an unreliable narrator was established in the first chapter, when he says he's writing to the jury... But fair enough, my bad.


JustNoNoISaid t1_j9e6dlx wrote

I would burn the Bible. Happily.

Every religious text ever written would be also be gladly sacrificed.

Fuck this infantile morality of 'burning books is kinda wrong'.