Books one hundred years from now

Fortunately, ex-slaves did write books...and they made a difference.

These range from "The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave," which was published as early as 1845, to "12 Years a Slave" from 1853. But some narratives written by slaves or ex-slaves go back to the 18th century while others were published as late as the middle of the 20th century.

I think you are absolutely right...but with some hesitation. While no book should be suppressed there should also be some way for a reader to be able to evaluate what they are reading. To take an example that I have been quoting often lately, someone reading "The Negro a Beast" would come away with the idea that blacks are literally animals and not human at all...and that there is science to support that. The book is certainly a window into the author's mind...but what actual knowledge does it convey? Zero. Likewise, "The Protocols of Zion" convinced tens of thousands of readers that there was a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. The Nazis were immensely influenced by this book...and it continues to sell and fuel conspiracies to this day. Should it be banned? No. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to include some context so that a reader can not only develop an opinion but an informed one. It is akin to pseudoscience. What harm can something like astrology be? one might ask. Massimo Pigliucci provides a pretty compelling answer. To take another example, early anti-vaccination books such as "A Shot in the Dark" were largely based on speculation and bad science and ultimately cost thousands of lives. Again, should it have been repressed? No...but how would a reader be able to know whether what they just read was knowledge or fantasy? No book should be repressed...but by the same token should a publisher assume some responsibility if they publish a book that through the author's ignorance and anti-science agenda potentially endangers lives? Or, as with "The Turner Diaries," encourages racial hatreds and even racial genocide?

It is morally wrong to suppress, censor and destroy books...but one has to also ask how many tens or even hundreds of thousands of human beings would be alive today had the Protocols never seen print? 

I have an elderly friend who is not in the best of health. Some years ago he decided to forego his prescribed medications...which had been doing him a lot of good...and instead follow the "treatments" advocated by the late Lynn Taggart (whose books were largely behind the American anti-vaccination movement). I asked him why he thought that anything she said had any value. "It was in a book," he replied, "and she has written lots of them." Indeed she did. But Taggart was a journalist with zero scientific or medical background. Pretty much everything she wrote was utterly worthless. But it was there, in print, between covers, and my friend believed it, along with hundreds of thousands of Taggart's other readers. Should her books have been suppressed? No, because that's a slippery slope to get started on. But...did her publisher have some responsibility to make sure that what they were publishing was correct and, even more importantly, at least harmless? Absolutely. Every single YA science book I have ever done has been fact-checked by an independent expert...and anything they find mistaken I am obligated to correct. Taggart's publisher had the same responsibility to its readers to have her book vetted by medical experts. But Taggart's books came out untouched...and today thousands of unvaccinated children are suffering and dying. And my friend is sicker than ever as he takes his colloidal silver and essential oils every day.

All too often---far, far too often---the lure of a potentially lucrative best-seller supersedes any moral responsibilities a publisher may have to its customers. 

One might say, well, the readers of these books can make their own decisions. They can read different accounts and make up their own minds. Alas, if only things worked that way. The problem with Taggart's books---and the many, many like hers---is that they are all written with an air of authority and expertise. They will even contain footnotes, references and bibliographies. There is no apparent reason for a layperson to question them. And even if they did, they don't necessarily have the background knowledge to judge which might be correct and which nonsense.

So what to do? Well, a good example of what not to do is the story of the publication of Immanuel Velikovsky's pseudoscientific and utterly worthless masterpiece, Worlds in Collision back in the 50s. When astronomers and scientists discovered that it was about to be published, they threatened to pull all of their own books from the publisher if it continued with its plans to publish Worlds in Collision. The publisher gave in and the book eventually came out from a different press. This was a real black mark for science...an event it has been trying to live down for more than three-quarters of a century. It was a perfect example of not only what not to do but how to guarantee making the book you were trying to suppress become a best-seller...which it did.

To extend your logic, Larika: If someone gets behind the wheel of an automobile and decides to run someone over with it, then the automobile manufacturer should be held accountable for the squished person's death?

Sorry. Not happening.

Print the books. Build the automobiles. Hold evildoers accountable for their OWN actions, not the population at large.

To extend your logic, Larika: If someone gets behind the wheel of an automobile and decides to run someone over with it, then the automobile manufacturer should be held accountable for the squished person's death?Print the books. Build the automobiles. Hold evildoers accountable for their OWN actions, not the population at large.

We are talking about books that are UNTRUE. If the automobile was defective and caused the death of a pedestrian,  I would certainly say that the manufacturer was irresponsible to produce it, however if the car was fine and the driver recklessly kills someone then it is the driver's fault. In the same way if the books are true go ahead and publish but when they are patently untrue then the publisher has a responsibility to the public to feed them the truth.

I am simply agreeing with Ron that  a publisher has some responsibility to make sure that what they are publishing is correct and, even more importantly, harmless. I am not saying supress the books once they are published, or burn them as Hitler did. However a publisher who publishes a harmful and incorrect book is being irresponsible.   Ron told us about the following books---
 A Shot in the Dark" were largely based on speculation and bad science and ultimately cost thousands of lives. Again, should it have been repressed? No...but how would a reader be able to know whether what they just read was knowledge or fantasy? No book should be repressed...but by the same token should a publisher assume some responsibility if they publish a book that through the author's ignorance and anti-science agenda potentially endangers lives? Or, as with "The Turner Diaries," encourages racial hatreds and even racial genocide

So no supression once published,  but certainly there should be a sense of responsibility on the part of the publisher before publication. Should the publisher have published the above untrue books, or the untrue Protocols of the Elders of Zion. I think the publishers were irresponsible, Do you agree?

By the way, perhaps something has changed!

I recently read some fine print on Lulu's site stating that if you accept one of their free ISBN's, then you accept that Lulu is the publisher of record of that work. I never saw that before the site downgrade.

I just looked for it again and couldn't find it.