As a teacher in a US state in which book banning (from the right) has become a real life concern, I am also deeply troubled by the pressure campaigns to pull books coming from the left. As you note, Goodreads has become a tool for this. I first noticed it last year with a YA book that didn't even have a publication date yet, so no one had read it, about a Jewish-American girl exploring her queer and Jewish identities on a summer trip to Israel. There were hundreds of one star reviews denouncing the book as Zionist propaganda. I wrote to Goodreads expressing concern about the treatment of this book, but also the wider issue of why people are allowed to leave "reviews" of books that no one has even read yet. One of the purposes of books is to inspire and provoke passionate discussion and debate, even protest. But people should at least have the option of reading them to make up their own minds.
Shutting down that possibility by pressuring authors to withdraw books before publication, in a world in which not long ago Salman Rushdie was literally stabbed on stage during a literary festival and many more people - especially women in the public eye - are subject to horrific campaigns of online abuse, doxing, and now even pornographic deepfakes - is simply another type of banning. But perhaps even more insidious, because these are books that won't get placed on defiant "Banned Book Month"-type tables in bookstores and libraries.
By some standards, the most banned book was "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier. An ACLU official tweeted "stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on". A UC Berkeley professor suggested stealing and burning this book. A speech by Abigail Shrier in Isreal was blocked by fanatical TRAs. See "Progressive censorship? Tel Aviv cancels launch of 'Irreversible Damage' - After left-wing protest, speech by author Abigail Shrier on what she defines as dangers of the transgender movement was cancelled." (https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/371801)
Thanks for sharing this. I remembered the ACLU official's comment but was not aware of the others. Whatever one thinks of the author's controversial thesis, it is one of the central issues of our time and serious people with competing viewpoints need to be heard, not censored.
Don't worry, the story gets worse. Target banned the book before (the next day) unbanning it. Amazon did not ban the book (a group of Amazon employees tried to get it banned). Amazon did suspend a paid advertising campaign for the book. Quotes from “Irreversible Damage” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage). Target later resumed banning the book.
“In June 2020, Amazon suspended a paid advertising campaign for the book one week prior to publication. Amazon stated this was because the book "infers or claims to diagnose, treat, or question sexual orientation."”
“In April 2021, a petition was launched to have the Halifax Public Library system remove their two copies of the book from circulation. The library refused, citing intellectual freedom and stating that removal would constitute censorship. Following this, Halifax Pride announced it would no longer hold events at any Halifax library locations.”
“In July 2021, the American Booksellers Association, a non-profit trade association that promotes independent bookstores, issued an apology for including the book in a monthly mailing, calling the decision to do so a "serious, violent incident" and characterizing the book as "anti-trans". This set off further controversy, with some arguing the association was now trying to censor the book, and others saying the apology was insufficient.”
“Skeptic and physician Harriet Hall published a positive review of the book on the website Science-Based Medicine in June 2021, stating that Shrier "brings up some alarming facts that desperately need to be looked into", that care centered on gender affirmation "is a mistake and a dereliction of duty", and that the current political climate has made scientific study of these matters nearly impossible. The site's two other editors, Steven Novella and David Gorski, took the unprecedented step of retracting this review, which was republished in Skeptic.”
If we never have to read or hear the word "Russia", does Russia cease to exist? In an Orwellian sense, I suppose it would cease to exist.
Should we search out all public maps and globes and substitute the words "Terra Incognita" for "Russia"? Actually, Terra Incognita may be a better descriptor for the geographical entity than Russia at least for us in the West.
I was already quite familiar with the real story of the Lykov family (who lived in the wilds of Siberia for 40 years). The self-cancellation of “The Snow Forest” is appalling to say the least. Of course, it should be noted that all of the works of Elizabeth Gilbert are worth canceling. The basic message of “Eat, Pray, Love” is hostile to the continued existence of human civilization.
Note, her cynical shrewdness. She pulls the book now to avoid the flak. Later she fully intends to make money from the book (presumably when the current war is over)
I should say that I have many ties to Russia and the Ukraine.
Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Hostile to the continued existence of human civilization"--that's one extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back it up?
This is a good example of the over-use of the term “cancel”. Her novel, her choice. People monitor and mold their behavior to the circumstances as they see them. Same here.
But is it really a choice in the face of an "enormous, massive outpouring of reactions...." and an online campaign to sabotage the book's commercial viability as evidenced by the 532 one star reviews? Kind of a "Hobson's choice" situation.
As a teacher in a US state in which book banning (from the right) has become a real life concern, I am also deeply troubled by the pressure campaigns to pull books coming from the left. As you note, Goodreads has become a tool for this. I first noticed it last year with a YA book that didn't even have a publication date yet, so no one had read it, about a Jewish-American girl exploring her queer and Jewish identities on a summer trip to Israel. There were hundreds of one star reviews denouncing the book as Zionist propaganda. I wrote to Goodreads expressing concern about the treatment of this book, but also the wider issue of why people are allowed to leave "reviews" of books that no one has even read yet. One of the purposes of books is to inspire and provoke passionate discussion and debate, even protest. But people should at least have the option of reading them to make up their own minds.
Shutting down that possibility by pressuring authors to withdraw books before publication, in a world in which not long ago Salman Rushdie was literally stabbed on stage during a literary festival and many more people - especially women in the public eye - are subject to horrific campaigns of online abuse, doxing, and now even pornographic deepfakes - is simply another type of banning. But perhaps even more insidious, because these are books that won't get placed on defiant "Banned Book Month"-type tables in bookstores and libraries.
By some standards, the most banned book was "Irreversible Damage" by Abigail Shrier. An ACLU official tweeted "stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on". A UC Berkeley professor suggested stealing and burning this book. A speech by Abigail Shrier in Isreal was blocked by fanatical TRAs. See "Progressive censorship? Tel Aviv cancels launch of 'Irreversible Damage' - After left-wing protest, speech by author Abigail Shrier on what she defines as dangers of the transgender movement was cancelled." (https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/371801)
Thanks for sharing this. I remembered the ACLU official's comment but was not aware of the others. Whatever one thinks of the author's controversial thesis, it is one of the central issues of our time and serious people with competing viewpoints need to be heard, not censored.
Don't worry, the story gets worse. Target banned the book before (the next day) unbanning it. Amazon did not ban the book (a group of Amazon employees tried to get it banned). Amazon did suspend a paid advertising campaign for the book. Quotes from “Irreversible Damage” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreversible_Damage). Target later resumed banning the book.
“In June 2020, Amazon suspended a paid advertising campaign for the book one week prior to publication. Amazon stated this was because the book "infers or claims to diagnose, treat, or question sexual orientation."”
“In April 2021, a petition was launched to have the Halifax Public Library system remove their two copies of the book from circulation. The library refused, citing intellectual freedom and stating that removal would constitute censorship. Following this, Halifax Pride announced it would no longer hold events at any Halifax library locations.”
“In July 2021, the American Booksellers Association, a non-profit trade association that promotes independent bookstores, issued an apology for including the book in a monthly mailing, calling the decision to do so a "serious, violent incident" and characterizing the book as "anti-trans". This set off further controversy, with some arguing the association was now trying to censor the book, and others saying the apology was insufficient.”
“Skeptic and physician Harriet Hall published a positive review of the book on the website Science-Based Medicine in June 2021, stating that Shrier "brings up some alarming facts that desperately need to be looked into", that care centered on gender affirmation "is a mistake and a dereliction of duty", and that the current political climate has made scientific study of these matters nearly impossible. The site's two other editors, Steven Novella and David Gorski, took the unprecedented step of retracting this review, which was republished in Skeptic.”
I may actually now buy the book just in protest of the protest.
This is not a tricky topic. The idea that one should not release a novel set in 40s Soviet Siberia because of the current war is utter lunacy.
Minor note. The book is set in the 30s, not 40s. The book is based on the actual history of the Lykov family.
If we never have to read or hear the word "Russia", does Russia cease to exist? In an Orwellian sense, I suppose it would cease to exist.
Should we search out all public maps and globes and substitute the words "Terra Incognita" for "Russia"? Actually, Terra Incognita may be a better descriptor for the geographical entity than Russia at least for us in the West.
I was already quite familiar with the real story of the Lykov family (who lived in the wilds of Siberia for 40 years). The self-cancellation of “The Snow Forest” is appalling to say the least. Of course, it should be noted that all of the works of Elizabeth Gilbert are worth canceling. The basic message of “Eat, Pray, Love” is hostile to the continued existence of human civilization.
Note, her cynical shrewdness. She pulls the book now to avoid the flak. Later she fully intends to make money from the book (presumably when the current war is over)
I should say that I have many ties to Russia and the Ukraine.
Like the man said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. "Hostile to the continued existence of human civilization"--that's one extraordinary claim. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back it up?
Easy. The core premise of "Eat, Pray, Love" is that a woman should leave her marriage because she is bored. Note bored, not abused.
This is a good example of the over-use of the term “cancel”. Her novel, her choice. People monitor and mold their behavior to the circumstances as they see them. Same here.
But is it really a choice in the face of an "enormous, massive outpouring of reactions...." and an online campaign to sabotage the book's commercial viability as evidenced by the 532 one star reviews? Kind of a "Hobson's choice" situation.
You're correct, but I haven't seen anyone question her 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 to cancel it, merely the rightness of doing so.
People do not buy Elizabeth Gilbert books for their intellectual rigor.
The underlying story of the Lykov family (in Siberia) is a very serious one. Most of the family members have sadly died.