25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

[Judith Latham]

Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote



Judith

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.

I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.

Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.

Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new
bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.

[Hibou]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list. [...]

A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.

'To Kill a Mockingbird' is one of those stories that leave me feeling
more optimistic about humanity...

Post by Peter Moylan
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new
bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.

... and thinking about the Mumps undoes the effect.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new
bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.

That's a reason to ban all books,

Jan

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

A case could be made, I think, for banning Lolita. (And in fact it was
banned here at the time I read it.) At least half of the others, maybe
more, should be compulsory reading at senior high school level.
I can sort of understand why Tequila Mockingbird would be banned in
heavily racist states.
Who would ban The Lorax? Ah, I see; the climate change deniers.
Let's be grateful for small mercies, though. There probably won't be new
bannings in the US as long as you have a president who can't read.

That just means he can't read the list of what is being banned in his name.

[bertietaylor]

They simply ignored Arindam's matchless book, "The Son of Hirnayaksh",
which beats anything in the Western world, including Shakespeare and
Homer.

Woof-woof

Bertietaylor

[D]

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

Post by Judith Latham
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov

Disturbing.

Post by Judith Latham
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck

On the list!

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

Post by Judith Latham
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

Excellent! Will read again.

Post by Judith Latham
Animal Farm by George Orwell

Excellent! Will read again.

Post by Judith Latham
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey

Excellent! Will read again.

Post by Judith Latham
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut

Excellent! Will read again.

Post by Judith Latham
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway

Boring. Could not finish. Hemingways short stories are excellent! Recommend "Men
without women" excellent!

Post by Judith Latham
The Call of the Wild by Jack London

Good for children.

Post by Judith Latham
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess

Excellent! Will read again.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.

Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.

[D]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.

Thank you Peter! This is a very interesting observation. I will read it
again and it will be very interesting if I will share your experience.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.

Well, to some extent at least, when you read /Catch-22/ again, you are
aware of the /linear/ plot, which you were not the first time. So it
is a different experience.

Post by Peter Moylan
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.

Was it ever promoted to MajorMajorMajor?

[Rich Ulrich]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.

"Read once" vs. "read multiple times" -

In my youth, almost every book of fiction was "read once".
I read fast, but I remembered large amounts word-for-word
and that made re-reading less pleasant. But I did develop a
habit of re-reading series, where the latter stories added
depth to what I had picked up on first-read.

I still read fast, which I've realized is often "too fast."
Especially, I still missed a lot of social interplay and clever
dialog, even though I try to pay more attention. These days,
I'll re-read a book within a few weeks if I did enjoy it.

Back in the early days when I seldom re-read, the one book
that fascinated me enough to re-read was "Cat's Cradle."
To my surprise, it did not surprise me at all -- it seemed to
evoke only the same insights and reactions that had impressed
me on the first reading.

Post by Peter Moylan
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.

[D]

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.

"Read once" vs. "read multiple times" -
In my youth, almost every book of fiction was "read once".
I read fast, but I remembered large amounts word-for-word
and that made re-reading less pleasant. But I did develop a
habit of re-reading series, where the latter stories added
depth to what I had picked up on first-read.
I still read fast, which I've realized is often "too fast."
Especially, I still missed a lot of social interplay and clever
dialog, even though I try to pay more attention. These days,
I'll re-read a book within a few weeks if I did enjoy it.
Back in the early days when I seldom re-read, the one book
that fascinated me enough to re-read was "Cat's Cradle."
To my surprise, it did not surprise me at all -- it seemed to
evoke only the same insights and reactions that had impressed
me on the first reading.

I think I read faster than average. I frequently get anoyed when shoulder
browsing and people take way too long time to read through text on their
computer.

I also moved from read once, to read many. I enjoy re-reading my
favourites every couple of years to a decade or so.

It's about the mood and the "feeling" I want to get into, and when I read
a good book, I might actually read it slower to savour it.

If I read boring books, or read for work, I accelerate at the cost of some
dialogue or boring background descriptions. At work it is even easier
because I know why I am reading and what I need which allows me to skip a
lot of reading.

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan
Having said that, I still acknowledge that Catch-22 is an important
literary work. In fact, when I released my mailing list manager, I
called it MajorMajor.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 12:53:41 -0500, Rich Ulrich

Post by Rich Ulrich

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.
Many of the other books on the list can be read with pleasure multiple
times.

"Read once" vs. "read multiple times" -
In my youth, almost every book of fiction was "read once".
I read fast, but I remembered large amounts word-for-word
and that made re-reading less pleasant. But I did develop a
habit of re-reading series, where the latter stories added
depth to what I had picked up on first-read.
I still read fast, which I've realized is often "too fast."
Especially, I still missed a lot of social interplay and clever
dialog, even though I try to pay more attention. These days,
I'll re-read a book within a few weeks if I did enjoy it.

When I first read /The Hunger Games/, I read it lickity-split and then
mistook subconscious items I had retained without realing it for
inferences I was making. When I read it the second time, I also reread
it the third time because I had to slow myself down practically every
chapter and reread it again, much more slowly. There is a /lot/ of
background info that Katniss, who is telling the story in first-person
present, provides.

[Stefan Ram]

Post by Paul S Person
inferences I was making. When I read it the second time, I also reread
it the third time because I had to slow myself down practically every
chapter and reread it again, much more slowly. There is a /lot/ of

I'm reminded of this tale. So, this dude's getting the grand tour
of some fancy-pants elementary school for whiz kids, right?

They're filling him in on how these little Einsteins are blazing
through books at warp speed.

He's like, "Whoa, that's some next-level reading for tykes their age!"

But get this - they drop the bomb that it's not about teaching
these mini-geniuses to read faster. Nope, they're actually trying
to slow them down.

(I could've sworn this was straight outta "Brave New World,"
but I've combed through that bad boy and zilch. Guess my
memory's playing tricks on me like a Hollywood plot twist . . .)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had lost
its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read once" book.

Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but in
some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
--scott

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.

Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

[Titus G]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.

Have you seen the film?  The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

Catch-22 was my favourite 'documentary" for decades and whilst I enjoyed
the film, it had nowhere near the impact of the book. It is decades
since last read but I have reread it many times. The trouble with the
film is that when I think of characters in the book, I see characters
from the film who were rarely developed or expressed as well as in the
book. Now, I feel like reading it again.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Titus G

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller

Excellent! Will read again.

I did read it again, and was disappointed. Somehow, for me, it had
lost its air of originality. I'd almost classify it as a "read
once" book.

Have you seen the film?  The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

Catch-22 was my favourite 'documentary" for decades and whilst I enjoyed
the film, it had nowhere near the impact of the book. It is decades
since last read but I have reread it many times. The trouble with the
film is that when I think of characters in the book, I see characters
from the film who were rarely developed or expressed as well as in the
book. Now, I feel like reading it again.

Yeah. I enjoy the film whenever I see it, but the book has a lot more
in it.

I should point out that the film /does/ move about in time, as the
book does, if not as much. So some of the flavor of the text (so to
speak), of it's nonlinear plot, is present.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Scott Dorsey
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.

The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

[Hibou]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Scott Dorsey
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.

My impression is that it varies. A normal-length film (say 110 mins)
can't contain as much as a normal-length novel (say 240 pp). A film
drawn from a book may well be more highly developed (which may or mayn't
[sic] be a good thing), but almost certainly leaves things out. Let's see...

'The Day of the Jackal' - film as good as the book,
though it does indeed leave some things out.

'The League of Gentlemen' (1960) - a favourite film that has more
charm than the book, in which (as I recall) the characters are
nasty and repellent.

'Effroyables jardins' - another favourite film (one is put through
the mill with the characters, so 'Y'a de la joie' makes an
first-rate ending); the book, on the other hand, is short and
unsatisfying, reads more like a pitch for the film.

'Nineteen Eighty-Four' - a favourite book. I'm not aware of a film
that has done it justice. Perhaps that's impossible, since we're
living inside Winston's head.

'Tunes of Glory' - both are good (and Guinness is superb).

'The Servant' (Maugham) - I preferred the book.

'Ice Cold in Alex' - the film is more developed and a bit better
than the book.

'To Kill a Mockingbird' - both good; the film, with Peck, may have
the edge.

'Dangerous Liaisons' - Frears' film (1988) is excellent, and not
really comparable with the novel, which is epistolary and has a
deus-ex-machina ending.

And so on. Aye, I think it varies.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

[Snidely]

Lo, on the 2/17/2025, Hibou did proclaim ...

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Scott Dorsey
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.

My impression is that it varies. A normal-length film (say 110 mins) can't
contain as much as a normal-length novel (say 240 pp). A film drawn from a
book may well be more highly developed (which may or mayn't [sic] be a good
thing), but almost certainly leaves things out. Let's see...
'The Day of the Jackal' - film as good as the book,
though it does indeed leave some things out.
'The League of Gentlemen' (1960) - a favourite film that has more
charm than the book, in which (as I recall) the characters are
nasty and repellent.
'Effroyables jardins' - another favourite film (one is put through
the mill with the characters, so 'Y'a de la joie' makes an
first-rate ending); the book, on the other hand, is short and
unsatisfying, reads more like a pitch for the film.
'Nineteen Eighty-Four' - a favourite book. I'm not aware of a film
that has done it justice. Perhaps that's impossible, since we're
living inside Winston's head.
'Tunes of Glory' - both are good (and Guinness is superb).
'The Servant' (Maugham) - I preferred the book.
'Ice Cold in Alex' - the film is more developed and a bit better
than the book.
'To Kill a Mockingbird' - both good; the film, with Peck, may have
the edge.
'Dangerous Liaisons' - Frears' film (1988) is excellent, and not
really comparable with the novel, which is epistolary and has a
deus-ex-machina ending.

The film /Doctor Zhivago/ leaves out a whole wife.

And so on. Aye, I think it varies.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

I presume you're referring to the films out of New Zealand, which
generally get a lot of praise. Also, AirNZ did several safety briefing
films using the LoTR theme, such as

Or maybe you did mean either the Rankin/Bass or the Bakshi versions
from the 20th Century?

/dps

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

I presume you're referring to the films out of New Zealand, which
generally get a lot of praise.

Yes.

Post by Snidely
Also, AirNZ did several safety briefing
films using the LoTR theme, such as
http://youtu.be/cBlRbrB_Gnc

Quite Funny.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 12:32:15 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Snidely

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

I presume you're referring to the films out of New Zealand, which
generally get a lot of praise.

Yes.

If you re-read the novel and re-watch the films reasonably closely
together, you may find that PJ and JRRT are, in fact, telling two
different stories. Bakshi's first half is actually closer to JRRT's
story that PJ's films are.

OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books, even
the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make it into
the film. They are very focused.

The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character development
or plot.

[D]

Post by Paul S Person
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character development
or plot.

This is the truth! When I watch the movies, I always skip the action segments,
because I find them extremely boring. I could not watch the hobbit from start to
finish even if you paid me several dollars to do it.

But then I discovered that the way to enjoy the movies was to just skip all the
action, and as a bonus, they then get cut down to a reasonable length! =D

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

Post by Paul S Person
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.

I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

I enjoyed the first three, and have reread the books several times,
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

But the later ones I could do without.

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.

I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.

A new American edition of the Narnia books is due to appear in a
couple of months, and the cover illustrations suggest that the US
publishers have placed them all in the "sword and sorcery" genre. Most
of the covers show the children brandishing drawn swords, which seems,
to me at least, as if they are tring to sell them as a series of
"Action sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot."

Perhaps that is because cinema lends itself more to action scenes, but
I once read a book whose author stated in the preface that it was all
action, with all the boring books left out. It was one of the most
boring books I have ever read ("Temple", by Matthew Reilly).

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

(Like Usenet hoped that Google would never tire of being its
somewhat lackadaisical archive.)

https://xkcd.com/1454/

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)

So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?

Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.


\

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

<snip>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Richard Heathfield
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

Post by Steve Hayes
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.

Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

[jerryfriedman]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
..

Post by Richard Heathfield
I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

So do I, but I prefer far more the School for Wizards
on Roke.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete. A couple of hours ago I
wanted to give the webaddress on some shops where you can buy dvds - but
they almost entirely had BluRays. I presume that the few dvds were the
last of their stock.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.

Then we need a definition.

By Wiktionary's definition - "No longer in use; gone into disuse;
disused or neglected (often in favour of something newer)." -
DVDs are not obsolete because I'm still using them, so is Steve
Hayes, and so are a number of acquaintances in "real life".
Besides, DVDs have only been around for ten minutes, so it's a
bit early to be chucking them away. (I would estimate my
collection's purchase price to be of the order of exp(8.5), so
it's not an investment I plan lightly to discard.)

I accept that Wiktionary's definition is descriptive, not
prescriptive, but I'd be curious to see your counterdefinition.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
I think that it's fair to call dvds obsolete.

Then we need a definition.
By Wiktionary's definition - "No longer in use; gone into disuse;
disused or neglected (often in favour of something newer)." -
DVDs are not obsolete because I'm still using them, so is Steve
Hayes, and so are a number of acquaintances in "real life".
Besides, DVDs have only been around for ten minutes, so it's a
bit early to be chucking them away. (I would estimate my
collection's purchase price to be of the order of exp(8.5), so
it's not an investment I plan lightly to discard.)

I have a collection of prewritten cdroms and dvds, and I have a
collection of unwritten cdroms and dvds.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I accept that Wiktionary's definition is descriptive, not
prescriptive, but I'd be curious to see your counterdefinition.

I haven't considered a definition.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

<snip>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Richard Heathfield
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete.

I don't think it is. I think there's still a market for people
who want to have the film on their shelf, not just `out there'.

I've got hundreds of CDs, hundreds of DVDs, hundreds of Blu Ray.
And I borrowed hundreds of discs from Netflix, but I've never
'streamed' from any service.

Home discs: Reproduction is better; availability will not disappear
when contracts run out.

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.

The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.


If I had holes in my collections, it might be cheap to fill them
because they still have the stock they built. A whole lot of movies
are available at $5 (or less, esp. for DVD).

Post by Richard Heathfield
I was given the complete Harry Potter on DVD, but I gave them
away as soon as I could find a good home for them. I prefer
Unseen University.

I read the whole series of Potter books, and enjoyed them. Once
through. I see at IMDb that I've never rated Sorcerer's Stone,
so I'm pretty sure I skipped that whole movie experience beyond
random clips.

[D]

Post by Rich Ulrich
The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I think there is a small, but growing movement that appreciates CD/LP/Casette.
It's not big business of course, but the trend is growing. I think that is a
very good thing that people realize that it is better to own your media and
books, than being tethered to a service that sucks money out of your wallet.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.

Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

[D]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by jerryfriedman
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 13:52:08 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The local chain that specialized in DVD and Blu Ray is still open.
They make some money on new vinyl, but especially on GAMEs.
Google confirms, Games are a bigger industry than cinema, in billions
of dollars (discs are like $60, not $20).

Post by Richard Heathfield
Fortunately for me, all the movies I want to see are available on
DVD, and many of them are on Blu Ray.

The reason that DVD-only shops must close is that so many
new movies (and TV series) are bought up for streaming and
are never released on disc. CDs led that transition, I think.
I still stop by the shop (when on my way to buy tea, a few doors
away) and there are a few CDs being released -- but more likely
Zappa or Greatful Dead, mining their archives, than new music.

I've found antique stores and flea markets to be good sources
for DVDs and Blu-rays that are out of stock with most retailers.

This is the truth! It is scientifically proven!

Post by Scott Lurndal
Amazon has really gone down hill in that area recently; many
older titles that I look for are either out of stock or only
available used from third party sellers.

[WolfFan]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.

If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 06:26:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 05:50:40 +0000, Richard Heathfield

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?

No.

Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting
your favourite films?

No.

Ha! :-)
So there is a third option of which I are remain higgorant. Care
to reveal?
Guess #3 - you are storing them on eg pluggable-innable SSD drives?

No, I'm watching them on DVDs, even though the technology is now
obsolete. I can watch the Harry Potter movies because they were
available on DVD. but I can't watch more recent movies, because all
the shops that sold DVDs have now closed.
\

Hmm. DVDs are still available from sources like Amazon... You’re in South
Africa, right? [checks] amazon.co.za lists a lot of DVDs. Someone seems to
really like John Wayne.
If you can’t get the movies you like, and if they’re available elsewhere
(Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, Target...) may I propose a swap? We get you the
movies if you take Elon back. Please.

Also check local shops that sell used CDs/LPs and such things. Sometimes
they have a couple of boxes with DVDs practically giving them away. You
can also score some nice deals by checking web sites selling used stuff,
there you can find loads of people just giving away their DVDs.

[D]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by Steve Hayes
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.

Presumably you prefer Blu-Ray?
Or do you just hope that the Internet will never tire of hosting your
favourite films?

This is the truth! Having to stream all your books, videos and music is
also the wet dream of all media companies. Instead of buying it and owning
it forever, you will forever be a slave to streaming services at a monthly
cost.

Maybe it could be argued that the media houses will store our favourites
for us, and that we can pirate those movies based off their streaming.

Post by Richard Heathfield
(Like Usenet hoped that Google would never tire of being its somewhat
lackadaisical archive.)
https://xkcd.com/1454/

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.

On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

[Steve Hayes]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:44:32 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

I have read them all, but in rereading, I prefer reading the first
three. I see the point that the wizarding world is not just a happy
shining place but that there are bad people in it, but that is evident
in the first three books too, though the children, being younger, have
a tendency to draw sharper lines, seeing people as either all good or
all bad -- eg Hagrid Good, Snape Bad, and as they grow older come to
see that both good and evil can be present in the same person.

Post by Paul S Person
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

... and even longer.

Post by Paul S Person
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

Post by Steve Hayes
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Yes, exactly.

I watched a few episodes of the TV series before it reminded me
how seriously the books had turned me off. The sex and bare boobs
were not enough to keep me.

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

Post by Steve Hayes
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Yes, exactly.
I watched a few episodes of the TV series before it reminded me
how seriously the books had turned me off. The sex and bare boobs
were not enough to keep me.

I thought they were brilliant up to the last one, which spent a lot of
effort avoiding making things we wanted to see happen.

Of course it's all moot now. I certainly couldn't recommend anyone start
reading the series.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Rich Ulrich
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 05:02:30 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.

I think I got through more than two, but ...

I couldn't even finish _A Game of Thrones_. I did quite enjoy
most of Jordan's Wheel of Time (Crossroads of time, however, was a failed
experiment).

Never could finish a Tolkien, either.

[D]

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.

I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but
for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to
read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad
poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the
dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their
books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those
days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+
pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

I bring you your perfect novel.

A Tale
------

by Anon.

Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad
people did bad things. The good people stopped them from doing
bad things. The bad people said sorry and became good people and
many died of boredom. All the good people who were left lived
happily ever after, until they too died of boredom.

The End.

£19.99 from all good booksellers.

[D]

Post by Richard Heathfield

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my biggest gripes
with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story, something happening! I do
not want 100s of pages of environmental descriptions, or bad poetry, or
irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip that and only read the dialogue when it
comes to authors of that type. Then I do not buy more of their books.
That is why I like the golden age of science fiction! In those days, authors
were able to write stories in less than 300 pages, and they wrote good stories!
At most they published more books instead.
I often wonder about this modern fashion of tapping out 1000+ pages of bricks?
It is very strange.

Reading sucks, doesn't it?

Incorrect statement. Read again, and comment wisely.

Post by Richard Heathfield
I bring you your perfect novel.
A Tale
------
by Anon.
Once upon a time, there were good people and bad people. The bad people did
bad things. The good people stopped them from doing bad things. The bad
people said sorry and became good people and many died of boredom. All the
good people who were left lived happily ever after, until they too died of
boredom.
The End.
£19.99 from all good booksellers.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by D

Post by Steve Hayes
It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for
me, at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin
against long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a
story. But some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R.
Martins seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the
second book. There's enough political wheeling and dealing and
backstabbing in the quotidian world (there, I used that word)
without having to read about it in fiction.

I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

[D]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by D
I agree! This is a sickness with modern authors, and one of my
biggest gripes with Stephenson and Martin as you say. I want a story,
something happening! I do not want 100s of pages of environmental
descriptions, or bad poetry, or irrelevant stuff. So I usually skip
that and only read the dialogue when it comes to authors of that
type. Then I do not buy more of their books.

I don't think this is entirely the authors' fault. I have the impression
that the publishers are creating pressure to include lots of padding.
They've moved away from selling quality, towards selling books by the
yard. Unfortunately the readers are losing out, because the padding
ruins the story.

This is the truth! I have heard rumours that in american educational literature,
the payment is based on quantity and not quality, hence the door stops you get
in most subjects with lots of padding, and cream and cherry on top.

Post by Peter Moylan
If you look at the output of a prolific writer, you'll almost always
find a point where they stopped writing short novels and turned to
producing doorstops instead; and the change always seems to be abrupt.

This is the truth! I like Hemingways short stories, his long ones I find boring.
I have also, like you say, noted an increase in book volume over time. It is
very sad. Could it also be that as the author becomes more famous, the editor
dares to cut less? After all, the concept works, so let's not rock the boat.

Post by Peter Moylan
I have not yet read anything by Peter Hamilton, because I haven't found
a book short enough to be worth buying.

Haha... yes, I remember the Peter Hamilton books in the science fiction
bookstore. Like you, they are way too heavy for me to handle. ;)

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Steve Hayes
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 08:44:32 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.

I have read them all, but in rereading, I prefer reading the first
three. I see the point that the wizarding world is not just a happy
shining place but that there are bad people in it, but that is evident
in the first three books too, though the children, being younger, have
a tendency to draw sharper lines, seeing people as either all good or
all bad -- eg Hagrid Good, Snape Bad, and as they grow older come to
see that both good and evil can be present in the same person.

Post by Paul S Person
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.

... and even longer.

Post by Paul S Person
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.

It's not just that it makes them more difficult to film, but for me,
at least, it made them less interesting to read. I have nothin against
long books *in principle* if they are actually telling a story. But
some are just too verbose. I tried reading George R.R. Martins
seemingly endless series, and have up halfway through the second book.
There's enough political wheeling and dealing and backstabbing in the
quotidian world (there, I used that word) without having to read about
it in fiction.

Seemingly endless series - try Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" or Terry
Goodkind's "Sword of Truth".

I've read both, some years ago now.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Paul S Person
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 01:19:17 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.

Hmm. I don't agree. The second book was basically a clone of the
first. After that, they started to get more complicated as the
kids started to grow up and understand more about the realities of
their world. Ie: the lavish hall feasts are not conjured magically,
they are prepared by, basically, slaves, the wizarding world is not
a shiny happy place, but is full of bad people etc. Perhaps the
best extended example of this is the development of Hagrid who moves
from beloved mentor to deeply flawed friend as the kids gradually realize
just how bad his judgement is. By the last book, even Harry's trust in
Dumbledore is examined and tested.
On the whole I think the movies caught this by moving on from the shiny
Chris Colombus beginnings to edgier directors later in the sequence.

Interesting perspective. Perhaps I need to re-read the whole lot from
the beginning.

Me too.
Lynn

If you stopped after (say) the first three, you should be aware that
the author /warned/ parents that the serious was going to get more and
more ... serious ... as time went on.
As it did -- people who, while not major characters in the series, are
very much part of the story started dying in Book 4, and major
characters in Book 5. And the last two books are even darker.
The books also get considerably longer, which means the films omiNt a
lot more of their contents. The entire ELF sequence is missing. We
never see Neville with his parents. One of the things Rowling did was,
consulting her Secret Master Plot, advise the filmmakers on what could
be cut and what would be needed to make what would come later have a
foundation.
OTOH, the very long section recounting Our Heroes' Trek across Britain
in Book 7 is shortened to a pastiche of scenes with a relevant
soundtrack in the film. This was a definite improvement.

I ripped through all seven books back in 2010 or so. Been a while. I
do not remember any kitchen slaves in the dungeon.
Lynn

That's what House Elves are: slaves. Hermione even starts a liberation
society and the others treat her like "Oh, that's so cute!"

[lar3ryca]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
OTOH, the Harry Potter films tell the same stories as the books,
even the later ones, where way more than half the book doesn't make
it into the film. They are very focused.

Harry Potter is one case where I enjoyed the films (except the last
one), but perhaps this is related to how I reacted to the books. The
first book was excellent, the second was not too bad, but after that
they were a boring exercise in self-plagiarism. I never got to the end
of the fourth volume.

I agree, and the same applies to the movies.
I enjoyed the first three, and have reread the books several times,
and rewatched the movies using now-obsolete DVD technology.
But the later ones I could do without.

I watched some of them. Can't remember which ones. I thoroughly enjoyed
them, especially the humourous bits.. Whomping Willow, Diagon Alley, etc.

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Paul S Person
The problem isn't that changes are made -- changes are always made
when a book is filmed. The problem is that the changes make no sense
at all until you realize that PJ treated the book as a series of
Action Sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot.

I didn't at all like the war theme at the end of the final film. It felt
as if the directors had switched over to Hollywood-style shoot-em-ups
and car crashes.

A new American edition of the Narnia books is due to appear in a
couple of months, and the cover illustrations suggest that the US
publishers have placed them all in the "sword and sorcery" genre. Most
of the covers show the children brandishing drawn swords, which seems,
to me at least, as if they are tring to sell them as a series of
"Action sequences separated by boring things like character
development or plot."
Perhaps that is because cinema lends itself more to action scenes, but
I once read a book whose author stated in the preface that it was all
action, with all the boring books left out. It was one of the most
boring books I have ever read ("Temple", by Matthew Reilly).

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 +0000, Hibou
<vpaereru-***@yahoo.com.invalid> wrote:

<snippo other book/film pairs>

/Three Days of the Condor/ worked well -- but the book was /Six Days
of the Condor/, so we lost three days!

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 +0000, Hibou
<snippo other book/film pairs>
/Three Days of the Condor/ worked well -- but the book was /Six Days
of the Condor/, so we lost three days!

That's a special case. The book itself was just depressingly awful and
went on too long as well. The movie made from it is one of my favorite
films.
--scott

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 08:20:59 +0000, Hibou
<snippo other book/film pairs>
/Three Days of the Condor/ worked well -- but the book was /Six Days
of the Condor/, so we lost three days!

That's a special case. The book itself was just depressingly awful and
went on too long as well. The movie made from it is one of my favorite
films.

Actually, I rather liked the book.

But the film was a good adaptation.

[Richard Heathfield]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Scott Dorsey
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but
in some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.

I rarely look at a film based on a book I have read, because I've been
disappointed too many times. I think I did see the film in this case,
but my main memory of it is "not as good as the book".

My experience is that the first item is the best. If I see the film
first, the book doesn't live up to it and vice versa.
The only time this was not the case was when watching "Lord of the
Rings". Book and film matched perfectly. I should add that it's been
several decades since I read the book.

Any attempt to film LOTR was doomed to failure, and yes, there
were attempts, and yes, they failed.

That Peter Jackson's attempt succeeded was a miracle because it,
too, was doomed to failure, and completely failed to fail.

I hope I can claim to be a sufficiently picky Tolkien aficionado,
but I could find no reasonable fault. I have now watched the
films more often than I've read the book, which is not easy.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Have you seen the film? The film is very different than the book but in
some ways is a better experience even though so much is left out.
--scott

Now there's a context in which I would have used "different from"
rather than "different than".

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

Jan

[Paul S Person]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?

I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.

First line of the synopsis of the book:
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

You do know what a bluejay is, I hope?

Jan

[lar3ryca]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,

For any reason? Have you actually read the book, or at least the passage
including that part of the 'summary'. I wonder if you also read the rest
of the summary. The summary I have states, right after the above,

This is a lawyer's advice to his children as he defends the real
mockingbird of this story - a black man charged with raping a white girl
in the Deep South of the 1930s.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. J. Lodder
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.

"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.
You do know what a bluejay is, I hope?

I do, and in some areas it is a pest. Here's the passage in question.

That was the only time I ever heard Atticus say it was a sin to do
something, and I asked Miss Maudie about it.
"Your father's right," she said. "Mockingbirds don't do one thing but
make music for us to enjoy. They don't eat up people's gardens,
don't nest in corncribs, they don't do one thing but sing their hearts
out for us. That's why it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

Post by Peter Moylan
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,

Jan
--
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story — a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====

PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 14:59:11 +0100, ***@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

<snippo discussion of first line of synopsis>

Post by J. J. Lodder
--

This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply
required extra effort. Was that intended?

Post by J. J. Lodder
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story — a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====

Well, one of these statements is true:
1. The book is very much different from the film.
2. The synopsis-writer had no idea who the mockingbird was.

In the film, the "mockingbird" is Boo, not Tom.

Post by J. J. Lodder
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.

It is a pest in some areas. Areas with gardens, apparently. And there
are a lot of gardens in small towns.

Since it is a dinosaur, being comparable in intelligence to great apes
is very ... suggestive.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Paul S Person

--

This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply
required extra effort. Was that intended?

Yes.

If you click on the body and press Ctrl-A, the whole body including the
sig is marked. Now an R will start a response with the sig included.

... I think. It's been years since I used Agent.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Paul S Person

--

This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply
required extra effort. Was that intended?

Yes.

Sigs are sometimes used for illustrative, humorous, or irrelevant
material, or just for no reason at all, for material
that does not need to be quoted. (in the authors opinion)
Originally they were just an extension of the headers,
which you also don't quote.

If you disagree you can always override that.
Cut and paste, or selcect the entire posting before replying.

Jan

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 19:01:36 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Paul S Person

--

This marks the below as a "sig". Getting Agent to keep it in the reply
required extra effort. Was that intended?

Yes.
If you click on the body and press Ctrl-A, the whole body including the
sig is marked. Now an R will start a response with the sig included.
... I think. It's been years since I used Agent.

Which is, of course, what I did.

Incidentally, if you highlight (say) one paragraph and hit R, that
paragraph is all you see in the reply.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
If you click on the body and press Ctrl-A, the whole body including the
sig is marked. Now an R will start a response with the sig included.
... I think. It's been years since I used Agent.

Which is, of course, what I did.

That function does not exist in Dialog which is otherwise in many ways
resembles Agent.

Post by Paul S Person
Incidentally, if you highlight (say) one paragraph and hit R, that
paragraph is all you see in the reply.

That's the same in Dialog. I never use it because I prefer to have the
full quote to edit. Getting rid of the enormous amounts of superfluous
quotes, that are so popular in this group, takes little time.

[Don]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

Post by Peter Moylan
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,

Subject: Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english
Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.written,alt.usage.english

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

Post by Peter Moylan
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.

The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the
additional information about bluejays.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

[Don]

Quoted content corrected.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

Post by Peter Moylan
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

But he did. It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,
====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====
PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test.

The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the
additional information about bluejays.

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Don
Quoted content corrected.

<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a
Mockingbird/>

Post by Don

Post by J. J. Lodder
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)

<snippo>

Post by Don
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the
additional information about bluejays.

If actual research shows Tom to be the mockingbird rather than Boo,
then the book must differ considerably from the film.

I think this is a case of "synopsis-writer didn't actually read the
book but just glanced through it", but I could be wrong.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Don
Quoted content corrected.

<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a
Mockingbird/>

Post by Don

Post by J. J. Lodder
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)

<snippo>

Post by Don
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the
additional information about bluejays.

If actual research shows Tom to be the mockingbird rather than Boo,
then the book must differ considerably from the film.

..

When we read the book in seventh grade, we had a
discussion about who was a mockingbird. I think
we decided on both Tom and Boo, and maybe other
people too. I seem to recall a feeling of
spending too much time taking a figure of speech
too literally.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Paul S Person]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Don
Quoted content corrected.

<this is claimed to be a synopsis from an edition of /To Kill a
Mockingbird/>

Post by Don

Post by J. J. Lodder
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story - a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)

<snippo>

Post by Don
The simplest search substantiates your statements. Thank you for the
additional information about bluejays.

If actual research shows Tom to be the mockingbird rather than Boo,
then the book must differ considerably from the film.

..
When we read the book in seventh grade, we had a
discussion about who was a mockingbird. I think
we decided on both Tom and Boo, and maybe other
people too. I seem to recall a feeling of
spending too much time taking a figure of speech
too literally.

Ah, so the book didn't specify, but the film did.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

At the time, the bluejay was considered a pest by farmers.

So were gophers, and many counties offered bounties.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em,
but remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird."
It recurs in the text, as advice given to youngsters with air guns.

Where did that synopsis come from? I don't recall reading it. Perhaps
that is because I read the book, not the synopsis.

Your edition will probably not have had it.
The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition
(Harper Collins) begins with it.
Evidently the series editors see it as -the- key sentence of the book.
It is probably absent in other editions. (full text in .sig)
Note that 'shoot all the bluejays you want' is positive advice.
So here we see a thoroughly nasty 'good' American.

Post by Peter Moylan
I presume that the the author did not write the synopsis. Is it fair to
criticise a book based on something the author did not write?

But he did.

She (unless you're crediting Truman Capote with that
line).

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is quoted verbatim from a line in the text,

From your sig:

"====
Synopsis
"Shoot all the bluejays you want, if you can hit 'em, but
remember it's a sin to kill a mockingbird". This is a lawyer's advice to
his children as he defends the real mockingbird of this story — a black
man charged with raping a white girl in the Deep South of the 1930s
(The Harper Perennial Modern Classics Edition)
====

"PS The bluejay is a strictly North American species.
It is best compared to the Eurasian Magpie. (Pica pica)
This is a very intelligent bird, comparable in abilities to great apes.
It is the only non-mamalian species known to pass the mirror test."

Why best? Its closest relative is the Steller's Jay
of western North America, and it's currently placed
in the same subfamily as the other jays of the
Americas [*], the sister to the subfamily that contains
magpies, crows, ravens, and Old World jays.

A Web search confirmed my surmise that the very
intelligent bird you mentioned was the Eurasian
Magpie, not the Blue Jay. Wikipedia mentions that a
species of fish and a species of crab have been
reported to pass the mirror test, as well as domestic
pigeons after some training (e.g., to look in a mirror
in order to find food). It also says that an attempt
to replicate the mirror test with Eurasian Magpies
didn't find any self-recognition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Certainly crows, jays, and magpies are among the
most intelligent birds, though.

[*] Except the Canada Jay.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[D]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

Are you sure you know the story? That is, what the phrase actually
means?
I have only seen it in movie form; perhaps the book is different.

This was an obvious joke. I found it veru funny! =D

[D]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.

Mini review time!

Post by Judith Latham
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,
Jan

;)

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:31:35 +0000

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.

Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John

Post by Aidan Kehoe
There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.

Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.

Hunting is quite popular in Denmark. I've seen an estimate of 200'000
people who are hunters. There are 6 million Danes. That gives 3.3
percent.

[J. J. Lodder]

Bertel Lund Hansen <***@lundhansen.dk> wrote:
[About Denmark and nothing but Denmark, snipped]

Some unfortunate soul, thrown into quote hell by Bertil wrote;

There's nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this
situation is not hunting in the usual sense.

Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.

Dear Bertil PLEASE PLEASE LEARN to quote properly.
Attributions to quoted text should NEVER NEVER NEVER be snipped.

Since you are obviously incompetent at it
my advice to you is to leave all atttributions in place, always.

And since you are utterly unreliable,
and well known for quote-mining I can't reply through you
to Kerr-Mudd, John.
(whose posting happens to be missing on my server)

I know it is probably hopeless, but once again nevertheless:
Could you PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE change the errors of your ways?
Quote correctly, don't quote-mine.

Jan

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
On Tue, 18 Feb 2025 17:31:35 +0000

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

There’s nothing specifically American about hunting. Though yes, this situation
is not hunting in the usual sense.

Hunting is deeply imbedded in US culture. Hence the NRA.

The NRA pre 1980 was far different than the
NRA Of Heston, where it became far more political and in
the pocket of the gun industry.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by D

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. [...]
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

Boring!

And thoroughly American-nasty.
The idea that it is allright to kill any bird for any reason,
because you happen to feel that way, or just for target practice
put me off whatever else the book is trying to say.
Excepting Mockingbirds doesn't make it any better,

There's nothing specifically American about hunting.

Of course not, it goes back in our ancestors for millions of years.
And the chimps also do it.
What seems to be particular about the American way of hunting
is the mass-murder aspect it may have,
like in senselessly killing of herds of bison, or flocks of pigeons.
This is more like a few wolves killing off whole herds of sheep,
or school shooters killing all they can hit,
for no other reason than that they can.

Though yes, this situation is not hunting in the usual sense.

Indeed, not directly relevant to those mockingbirds.
Indirectly it is highly relevant.
The environment in which coloured people had to live in the South
was made explicit by the Tulsa Race Massacre. (1921)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre>

Coloured people in the South knew from hard experience
that at the slightest provocation, or even no provocation at all,
mass murdering mobs of whites with guns could descend on them,
killing, burning, and perhaps raping, destroying whole neighbourhoods.
They must have felt as safe, and as protected by the law
as Jews in Germany, after the Kristallnacht.
This is the background against which books like TKaM should be read.
Harper Lee, being from Alabama, was obviously aware of it.

It seems obvious to me that instant popularity of TKaM
is due to the fact that it appeared at a moment in time (1960)
when most Americans believed for a brief period
that things really could get better, permanently.

Men with guns soon ended the illusion,

Jan

PS, Dutch is particularly appropriate for it.
For outlaw, being outlawed, Dutch has 'vogelvrij' 'vogelvrij verklaard'.
Anyone can kill a person who has been declared 'vogelvrij',
just like anyone could shoot any bird.

[BCFD 36]

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?

Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

There are places where The Bible has been banned due to sex, violence,
rape, murder, slavery, and the like much to the Christian Taliban's
chagrin.

There are too many gray areas that this post does not color in for it to
be of any use.

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.

When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."

I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

Exaxtly.

In South Africa, back in the days of apartheid, there was a
Publications Control Board that really did ban books. If you bought,
sold or has such a book in your posession you were committing an
offence and could be prosecuted.

I don't think you can be prosecuted in the USA for possessing a book
that some obscure school library has declined to stock, and to call
such a book "banned" is unnecessary hype.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 04:05:51 +0200, Steve Hayes

Post by Steve Hayes
On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

Exaxtly.
In South Africa, back in the days of apartheid, there was a
Publications Control Board that really did ban books. If you bought,
sold or has such a book in your posession you were committing an
offence and could be prosecuted.
I don't think you can be prosecuted in the USA for possessing a book
that some obscure school library has declined to stock, and to call
such a book "banned" is unnecessary hype.

And it's only not in the library -- the kids can buy a copy and read
it if they want.

I do seem to have noticed, however, that "banned" is being used on
both sides of the issue. With satisfaction on one, and with hysteria
on the other.

Of course, Trump could change that with the stroke of a pen on an
Executive Order. Or at least try to do so. This is why I am just
sitting back, relaxing, and enjoying the increasingly weird Trump The
Sequel show.

[Titus G]

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books.

!934's "the postman always rings twice", James M Cain, was banned in Boston.

Other times, when

Post by Mike Van Pelt
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 23:54:39 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt

Post by Mike Van Pelt

Post by BCFD 36

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries.

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What
does it even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6)
or even middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they
would be right, for the most part.

Bingo.
When these are tracked down, generally it turns out it was
way back in the days when "Banned in Boston!" was a selling
point, and Boston actually banned books. Other times, when
a grammar school library declines to stock a book generally
inappropriate for pre-teens (A Clockwork Orange is arguably
in this category, as is Lolita) it's hyped as a "Banned book."
I don't count it as a "Ban" unless it's currently legally
prohibited from being sold to adults. I'm not sure I know
of any books that meet that standard, in the US, anyway.
Unless it's a book of kiddie porn with pictures, maybe,
if someone's actually trying to market such a thing.

Well, the bans do make the books less accessible to
youthful, inquiring minds. I remember, 1962-ish, asking
my high school librarian if she had some title presently in
the banning-news: She did, but had pulled it from the shelf
(temporarily) to avoid any local inflammation of the issue.

I don''t remember whether she gave it to me, which she
might done.

A few years later, a friend who had joined the navy told
me about his banned-book experienced. While he was
waiting to ship out from San Diego, some local group made
sure that sailors should be given a list of books to avoid;
he sensibly used it as a recommended-reading list.

[Arrest Gays]

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote
Judith

What was the source of this information? Banned where and by who? What does it
even mean by "banned"?
Someone may have found "A Clockwork Orange" in a grade school (K-5 or 6) or even
middle school and said it was inappropriate and I think they would be right, for
the most part.
There are places where The Bible has been banned due to sex, violence, rape,
murder, slavery, and the like much to the Christian Taliban's chagrin.
There are too many gray areas that this post does not color in for it to be of
any use.
And when she had brought them unto him to eat, he took hold of her, and
said unto her, Come lie with me, my sister.
And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing
ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt
be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto
the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
Howbeit he would not hearken unto her voice: but, being stronger than she,
forced her, and lay with her.
Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated
her was greater than the love wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said
unto her, Arise, be gone.

That is not pornographic.

Compare that with the explicit drawings of faggotry in books that gays and
stupid childless white women are trying to push on children.

[occam]

Post by Judith Latham
Below are 25 of the most popular works of literature from the last
century that have been banned from schools, libraries, and, in some
cases, entire countries. For even more great books that have been
banned, including picture books like Dr. Seuss's The Lorax, check out
this list.
The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
The Color Purple by Alice Walker
Beloved by Toni Morrison
Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
Catch-22 by Joseph Heller
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm by George Orwell
The Sun Also Rises by Ernest Hemingway
As I Lay Dying by William Faulkner
A Farewell to Arms by Ernest Hemingway
Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
Native Son by Richard Wright
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest by Ken Kesey
Slaughterhouse Five by Kurt Vonnegut
For Whom the Bell Tolls by Ernest Hemingway
The Call of the Wild by Jack London
The Jungle by Upton Sinclair
Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence
A Clockwork Orange by Anthony Burgess
The Awakening by Kate Chopin
In Cold Blood by Truman Capote

The most glaring omission from this list is 'The Satanic Verses' by
Salman Rushdie. A fatwah was issued against him in 1989, which forced
him into hiding.

I remember searching high and low for it in bookstores, to no avail. It
wasn't so much that it was banned (London, Brussels), but that most
bookstores were reluctant to keep them on their shelves, for fear of
retribution from Muslim extremists.

When I eventually tracked it down, I could not figure out which
passage(s) were the offending ones that got up the beard of Ayatollah
Khomeini. Ironic, given that the fatwah was issued by a follower of an
illiterate Prophet.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by occam
When I eventually tracked it down, I could not figure out which
passage(s) were the offending ones that got up the beard of Ayatollah
Khomeini. Ironic, given that the fatwah was issued by a follower of an
illiterate Prophet.

Maybe they just reacted to the title?

[occam]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by occam
When I eventually tracked it down, I could not figure out which
passage(s) were the offending ones that got up the beard of Ayatollah
Khomeini. Ironic, given that the fatwah was issued by a follower of an
illiterate Prophet.

Maybe they just reacted to the title?

<eejit!>