The other day, my history teacher said that banned books back in reformation times actually got read and remembered more. He also said that if he was an author, he would want his book to get banned. That got me wondering, do people want to read banned books more, or does it make it harder to read because access is restricted? So now I’m curious what other people think. If you were an author, would you want your book banned? Are you more likely to read a banned book? If yes, what makes a banned book more appealing?
by hi_kaylaaa13
12 Comments
In many cases, yes. People will seek it out because they want to know what the controversy was all about. That goes for all media (films, TV, music, etc.).
I have one banned book. In fact when I bought it, directly from the author, it hadn’t been banned yet. Soon the author was arrested and his book was banned from future publication but you can still find used copies. The author died in federal prison about 10 years later.
It makes people more interested in them, yes. I have read books that were “banned” just to see what the fuss was all about. I own the Satanic Verses just because I want to know what is in there that would make someone want to stab the author in the eye. I’ve heard it’s boring though so I haven’t gotten around to it yet….
The appeal is seeing what the fuss is about. If a book is banned, whatever is in there must be *really* awful or *really* good, at least that’s what we assume. Of course books that contain neither anything awful nor anything great often get banned for extremely silly reasons too, but then that honestly just functions as analog rage bait. Humans love rage bait.
If it were up to me, all books would be banned
Typical Law of supply and demand, the less accesible a book is, the more people want it and even the price goes up
https://www.edpost.com/stories/banning-books-only-makes-students-want-to-read-them-more
Even if I haven’t read the book, I can remember the titles of banned books years later, so yes, I would say it does make them more interesting. I’ve seen movies just because people were up in arms for whatever reason.
Ulysses was banned for being pornographic. Sure didn’t hurt James Joyce’s reputation – or sales, eventually.
I think people tend to gravitate towards the forbidden fruit.
This thing that you should not see or touch or read or listen to.
When the Satan panic happened in the 80s and all of the movies were getting explicit ratings and they were stickers being put on all music it did nothing to hurt the music industry in fact people gravitated towards things that had those explicit stickers on them.
I don’t feel that books are any different ☝️
It does in the sense of “huh, I should read that and see what all the fuss is about,” but not necessarily in the “I bet that’s a good book.”
There are so many banned books and some of them are banned for the most ridiculous reasons because prudish people hate entertainment.
No it makes you a fascist
I wouldn’t call it interesting, maybe forbidden, like reading the exorcist before the library age allows you to because you read the copy your brother checked out.
Yes, banning books does increase readership.
[https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/book-bans-backfiring-study-reveals-increased-readership-for-prohibited-books-controversial-book-bans-backfire-prohibitions-library-schools-education-controversy-students-children-parents-carnegie-mellon-university-george-mason-university-virginia-library](https://cbsaustin.com/news/nation-world/book-bans-backfiring-study-reveals-increased-readership-for-prohibited-books-controversial-book-bans-backfire-prohibitions-library-schools-education-controversy-students-children-parents-carnegie-mellon-university-george-mason-university-virginia-library)