Question for Ms. Mod:
I read Bev Vincent's essay entitled "Getting It On" over at Richard Chizmar's website dedicated to chronicling his return visits with Stephen King's works. It got me thinking. I was curious what you thought of the opinion that Rage should be back in print.
I firmly believe that. I read the book many years ago when I was in school. Thought it was really good (by the way, I like the title Getting It On much better).
Though I understand the controversy surrounding this particular collection of letters, I have to say, it strikes me odd that King refuses to put this one back in circulation. It doesn't make sense, especially considering his staunch belief in the First Amendment.
Could the book cause a disturbed teen to kill? Yes. No different than any other form of entertainment. But the problems caused by one species of speech that is meant not to harm but to enlighten in some fashion unfortunately cannot be banned over another speech-device meant to enlighten in a different way (i.e., a horror book has just as much right on a shelf as does an unambiguously inoffensive children's book).
If someone decides a piece of entertainment told him to kill, that is unfortunate. But it cannot lead to all of us worrying about those consequences.
As a prime example, it's pretty obvious that reports of a negative event do indeed lead to copycat phenomena. Yet, the decision has been made to continue reporting the news.
I understand King's decision. It is his right. And in fact, had he decided not to write the book in the first place, then there would be no question on this subject. I wouldn't say that he had no right not to write a book.
The fact that it has been published in the past, however, does make me wonder how King can remain consistent with his stance on censorship. It doesn't add up. It was out there previously, now it isn't, because King believes maybe his book might cause death.
A well-meaning politician might say "I am voting to keep minors away from certain books because I have the same concern as you did for one of your own books. I may even prevent people under 21 from reading a certain book, they may not be mature enough to handle the concepts. Some books are like intellectual cigarettes, dangerous to the mental physiology, and you have no moral authority to argue against me because you've done the same thing."
Sure, there's a difference -- one is the government, one is a private businessman. The latter certainly can do whatever he wants, I support that right.
But King, by pulling the book, agrees -- books can kill under certain circumstances. They can be blamed. He should then maybe understand why school libraries sometimes feel the need to protect kids from certain ideas. Or, maybe why city libraries would do the same. Maybe libraries shouldn't stock Bill O'Reilly's books, which are not history texts, contrary to popular belief. Maybe they shouldn't stock Tina Fey's books, she's not talking about important stuff like space research.
That would be one slippery slope, though. One he can't criticize.
And besides, someday, in the future, it will hit public domain.
The bestselling book of all time -- and we know what it is -- is pretty dear to a lot of people. There's a lot of violence in it. It arguably has caused a lot of violence. It will never go out of print.
What do you think, Ms. Mod? Would you like to see Rage back in print? Very interested in your opinion. And just to be clear, obviously I respect King's right to decide which of his books stay in print and which of his books do not.
[@Moderator]
I read Bev Vincent's essay entitled "Getting It On" over at Richard Chizmar's website dedicated to chronicling his return visits with Stephen King's works. It got me thinking. I was curious what you thought of the opinion that Rage should be back in print.
I firmly believe that. I read the book many years ago when I was in school. Thought it was really good (by the way, I like the title Getting It On much better).
Though I understand the controversy surrounding this particular collection of letters, I have to say, it strikes me odd that King refuses to put this one back in circulation. It doesn't make sense, especially considering his staunch belief in the First Amendment.
Could the book cause a disturbed teen to kill? Yes. No different than any other form of entertainment. But the problems caused by one species of speech that is meant not to harm but to enlighten in some fashion unfortunately cannot be banned over another speech-device meant to enlighten in a different way (i.e., a horror book has just as much right on a shelf as does an unambiguously inoffensive children's book).
If someone decides a piece of entertainment told him to kill, that is unfortunate. But it cannot lead to all of us worrying about those consequences.
As a prime example, it's pretty obvious that reports of a negative event do indeed lead to copycat phenomena. Yet, the decision has been made to continue reporting the news.
I understand King's decision. It is his right. And in fact, had he decided not to write the book in the first place, then there would be no question on this subject. I wouldn't say that he had no right not to write a book.
The fact that it has been published in the past, however, does make me wonder how King can remain consistent with his stance on censorship. It doesn't add up. It was out there previously, now it isn't, because King believes maybe his book might cause death.
A well-meaning politician might say "I am voting to keep minors away from certain books because I have the same concern as you did for one of your own books. I may even prevent people under 21 from reading a certain book, they may not be mature enough to handle the concepts. Some books are like intellectual cigarettes, dangerous to the mental physiology, and you have no moral authority to argue against me because you've done the same thing."
Sure, there's a difference -- one is the government, one is a private businessman. The latter certainly can do whatever he wants, I support that right.
But King, by pulling the book, agrees -- books can kill under certain circumstances. They can be blamed. He should then maybe understand why school libraries sometimes feel the need to protect kids from certain ideas. Or, maybe why city libraries would do the same. Maybe libraries shouldn't stock Bill O'Reilly's books, which are not history texts, contrary to popular belief. Maybe they shouldn't stock Tina Fey's books, she's not talking about important stuff like space research.
That would be one slippery slope, though. One he can't criticize.
And besides, someday, in the future, it will hit public domain.
The bestselling book of all time -- and we know what it is -- is pretty dear to a lot of people. There's a lot of violence in it. It arguably has caused a lot of violence. It will never go out of print.
What do you think, Ms. Mod? Would you like to see Rage back in print? Very interested in your opinion. And just to be clear, obviously I respect King's right to decide which of his books stay in print and which of his books do not.
[@Moderator]
Last edited: