What book is everyone reading at the moment?

[Piscivore]

Well, you kind of have this environment set up on another planet in another time, and in a totally different type of society altogether, and - well, I don't really know how to describe it, but the people are how they are, and they talk how they talk, and then one of them says something like, "that's really cool!" And so I stop listening to what the character is saying, and start wondering if that character would say "cool" in that context. It's a petty petty complaint to make of someone I consider to be a pretty awesome writer.

Ah, yeah. Gotcha.

It's better than that. I might be biased, since I've had the author for three classes, but he's a lot more careful a thinker than someone like Jack Thompson. I think if you read more of it, you would find a lot to disagree with, but I don't think you would be nauseated. Not that I blame you for getting that impression from the first page. And not that I necessarily recommend it, but if you're interested in the issue, I do recommend. Not because I think he's entirely right, of course.

There is this passage, "Even if children should enjoy some First Amendment rights, the benefits these rights provide may well be limited by a child's developmental stage. Rather than concluding that the rights of children and adults should be equal, we should consider the possibility of limiting children's rights to correspond to children's capacities."

As I've had to explain to my 15 year old daughter on several occasions, children have no 1st amendment rights of their own. They are legally, morally, and culturally the responsibility of their parents, and it is the parent's right and responsibility to dictate the limits of their own children's "rights". Shortly after he explicitly states that his "thesis" is that this right and responsibility should be taken out of parents' hands and placed in "society"- in other words, the people in power.

Essentially his argument is that the values of "society"- and I bet if you look closely you'll find that he assumes that the things that "society" values somehow mirror his own exactly- should trump those of any parent.

He's not trying to protect children from "free speech", he's trying to take it away from anyone who disagrees with him. That's what is nauseating.

 

[HawaiiBigSis]

The Illuminatus! Trilogy by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson

I keep having to remind myself that this was published 35 years ago, because some of it seems like quotes from yesterday's headlines.

 

[geonuc]

I just finished Six Frigates, by Ian Holm. Fascinating story of the beginnings of the US Navy. That period of US history (it covered in detail up to the end of the War of 1812) was largely a mystery to me.

 

[linusrichard]

There is this passage, "Even if children should enjoy some First Amendment rights, the benefits these rights provide may well be limited by a child's developmental stage. Rather than concluding that the rights of children and adults should be equal, we should consider the possibility of limiting children's rights to correspond to children's capacities."

As I've had to explain to my 15 year old daughter on several occasions, children have no 1st amendment rights of their own. They are legally, morally, and culturally the responsibility of their parents, and it is the parent's right and responsibility to dictate the limits of their own children's "rights". Shortly after he explicitly states that his "thesis" is that this right and responsibility should be taken out of parents' hands and placed in "society"- in other words, the people in power.

I don't think this is right. He does want some control placed in the hands of the state ("the people in power"), but I don't think he wants anything taken away from the parents. He wants children restricted from what they can get from other adults - or other adults restricted on what they can give to children.

Essentially his argument is that the values of "society"- and I bet if you look closely you'll find that he assumes that the things that "society" values somehow mirror his own exactly- should trump those of any parent.

Again, I don't think that's correct, but your parenthetical statement may be an accurate criticism. I'm not that far. I know his main focus is obscenity, which he believes should be expanded to include depictions of violence, but I don't know if he goes beyond that, or how far, or all the contours of his values and his idea of society's values, and how they match up.

He's not trying to protect children from "free speech", he's trying to take it away from anyone who disagrees with him. That's what is nauseating.

No, I don't think that's accurate. I think he is trying to protect children from harmful speech, and I don't think he would place any restriction on speech that's not going to children.

No promises, but as I read the book, I may get back to you with anything I find interesting as far as clarifying his position.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think this is right. He does want some control placed in the hands of the state ("the people in power"), but I don't think he wants anything taken away from the parents.

In order for that power to be given the state, it has to be taken from the parents.

He wants children restricted from what they can get from other adults - or other adults restricted on what they can give to children.

Right now, I am the arbiter of what my kids get exposed too. I decide if a book, movie, or video game is appropriate for them. That's my job as a parent, it is not the government's (or some "commitee" of concerned parents, or any other person) to protect my kids from what they don't like.

Again, I don't think that's correct, but your parenthetical statement may be an accurate criticism. I'm not that far. I know his main focus is obscenity, which he believes should be expanded to include depictions of violence, but I don't know if he goes beyond that, or how far, or all the contours of his values and his idea of society's values, and how they match up.

No, I don't think that's accurate. I think he is trying to protect children from harmful speech, and I don't think he would place any restriction on speech that's not going to children.

The problem comes in because what is "harmful" is a subjective opinion. His plan consists of usurping a parent's rights to make that determination. If I can't show, say, "Watchmen" or Requiem for a Dream" to my kids as I see fit, then he is restricting speech for someone other than a child. One thing that keeps coming up, in his words and yours as you try to explain his, is this curious idea that free speech consists of what someone hears. That's exactly backwards.

No promises, but as I read the book, I may get back to you with anything I find interesting as far as clarifying his position.

Please do. We might want to start another thread for it, though.

 

[linusrichard]

I really don't think he wants to take anything away from parents. Imagine the tobacco laws were changed so that they were identical to the way they are now, but a parent could allow their children to have tobacco. Compared to a regime where tobacco was entirely legal, this would be a case of giving a power to the state, but it wouldn't take anything away from the parents.

Not that anyone here is in favor of that for tobacco, but I think that's an approximation of what he's looking for for obscene speech.

I can't really address anything further till I've had a chance to read more.

 

[Piscivore]

I really don't think he wants to take anything away from parents. Imagine the tobacco laws were changed so that they were identical to the way they are now, but a parent could allow their children to have tobacco. Compared to a regime where tobacco was entirely legal, this would be a case of giving a power to the state, but it wouldn't take anything away from the parents.

Not that anyone here is in favor of that for tobacco, but I think that's an approximation of what he's looking for for obscene speech.

I can't really address anything further till I've had a chance to read more.

Fair enough.

 

[dezrah]

Just finished: "Born Standing Up" by Steve Martin. A great read and behind-the-scenes look at what it takes to create an act. It went faster that I would have liked.

Next up: "Blankets" by Craig Thompson. A coming of age graphic novel, detailing the life of someone raised in a strict fundamentalist family who finds freedom and love at church camp. I can't relate to that at all...

 

[Piggy]

Alphabet Juice, by Roy Blount, Jr.

He ain't always right, but it's a very fun book!

 

[sackett]

Bukowski's Women. Re-reading, of course. Nobody has overrated Bukowski the way I have, nor picked more holes in him later, but goddammit I do like laughing over a book -- coarsely, loudly, and long. How many authors can make you do that, and consistently?

 

[steffanie]

Monarchy by David Starkey, been reading it for about 4 months as it's heavy going.

Jack the Ripper- forget name and author. Also heavy going. Hmmmm. Lighter reading required methinks.

 

[boojum]

Just finished Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman. (I'm a late comer to Gaiman, having recently read Good Omens, and The Graveyard Book. I have American Gods waiting in the wings, but I haven't started it yet.)

Currently reading Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast: The Evolutionary Origins of Belief by Lewis Wolpert.

 

[arthwollipot]

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. It still hangs together even after twenty years.

 

[lionking]

Monarchy by David Starkey, been reading it for about 4 months as it's heavy going.

Jack the Ripper- forget name and author. Also heavy going. Hmmmm. Lighter reading required methinks.

I only recently read Monarchy. Did you know there is a TV series based on this book?

I am reading "London: The Biography" by Peter Ackroyd. Pity I didn't read it before I visited there a couple of years ago.

 

[sackett]

Nelson, Carola Oman. A third reading, in fact. Wonderfal way to write history.

 

[Holler Hoojer]

Winesburg, Ohio by Sherwood Anderson

 

[Aitch]

This afternoon, I shall start reading my new copy of The Opinionated Palate by Barbara Kafka - my old copy went AWOL (I suspect the usual problem - lent to a friend and never returned). A collection of her columns; one of the best foodie writers, IMO.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'm reading a book called Regenesis, by CJ Cherryh, just published in hardback. It's the sequal to her book Cyteen, written close to twenty years ago. Cyteen is a masterful work of science fiction, and although I'm only a few chapters into Regenesis, it's absolutely the same work. it may have taken her twenty years to write it, but it's looking like being well worth the wait.

 

[tomwaits]

"Unfinished Tales" by J.R.R. Tolkien

 

[Denver]

"Unfinished Tales" by J.R.R. Tolkien

I found that one a bit more difficult than the Silmarillion.
But if you liked Silmarillion (which I did), there is some enjoyment in Unfinished Tales too, imho.