Interested in your opinion

[Luvya]

I bought a book from a second hand bookstore. A previous owner chose to grab a black, felt-tip pen and tried to obliterate words he considered “dirty”. (I cannot quote the words here, since the same words would be considered “dirty” here, too. But you can guess.) Of course I only discovered this fact once I bought that book, and fortunately the words are still legible. I am interested in your opinion about this person. Do you think that his action was proper, or do you think that it was improper?

My opinion is simple. Anyone who attempts to censor a book and sells it to an unsuspecting retail store is a low-life scum.

 

[Newbie2]

I bought a book from a second hand bookstore. A previous owner chose to grab a black, felt-tip pen and tried to obliterate words he considered “dirty”. (I cannot quote the words here, since the same words would be considered “dirty” here, too. But you can guess.) Of course I only discovered this fact once I bought that book, and fortunately the words are still legible. I am interested in your opinion about this person. Do you think that his action was proper, or do you think that it was improper?

My opinion is simple. Anyone who attempts to censor a book and sells it to an unsuspecting retail store is a low-life scum.

Whoh.

The store owner bought the book, no? Had a chance to look through it?

And you bought the book too, no? Had a chance to look through it? Maybe, maybe not.

If the book was defaced and you didn’t notice it when you bought it, take it back. End of story. Speculating on the “scumminess” of the previous owner seems pointless.

Of course, the bookstore owner was really the previous owner, no?

 

[Luvya]

The store owner bought the book, no? Had a chance to look through it?

Beside the point. Second hand bookstores buy up books by the hundreds. They have no time to browse them.

And you bought the book too, no? Had a chance to look through it? Maybe, maybe not.

I certainly had the chance. But I did not. I do not expect self-appointed “do-gooders” editing the book before they sell them.

If the book was defaced and you didn’t notice it when you bought it, take it back. End of story. Speculating on the “scumminess” of the previous owner seems pointless.

Ah, but the point is the mutilation of the book. I would think that you would be upset if the Bible would be mutilated in a similar fashion. Now comes the surprise: “I would be supporting you”. Just because I do not revere the Bible as “special”, I still would condemn anyone who defaces or destroys it. That seems to be the difference between us.

 

[Boulder257]

In order to answer the question I think a great deal more information is necessary. We cannot know who did, why they did it, why they sold it, their intetions, or most importantly, their heart. I think it’s an unfortunate circumstance that you happen to have been a “victim” of this situation, but to call someone scum is a grand overreaction.

We can only speculate and assume and very little good comes from these activitities in this particular situation. Instead, offer it up to the Lord and pray for the individual that “blacked out” the words.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Interesting that the owner of the shop did this. I’m sure he’s breaking some kind of law here.

I would like to ask him/her a question though. Why sell the book in the first place if you cannot accept it in its current form?

 

[Barbkw]

Books aren’t sacred. The original owner of the book could just have well thrown the bound bunch of paper in the trash or recycled the book.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I think that it is funny that someone actually took the time to black out bad words in a book they read. I mean, they would have had to read the bad word in order to cover it up. While I think it is ridiculous behavior, I wouldn’t go so far as saying the person is ‘scum’ for doing it. They are just one of the many eccentric people in the world today.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I guess you’re assuming that the person’s censoring was done for the sake of whoever bought the book?

Maybe they censored the words for themselves or their family.

I think its a pretty distorted sense of morality that would label this person “scum”.

 

[nickybr38]

You need a fourth option which is: It should be optional. If you wish to have blacked out parts of a book you should be able to buy that but if you want the original you should be able to buy that too.

There are many really excellent books I wish I could read but I don’t want to put things into my head that don’t need to be there. I’m one of those people who start swearing if they hear/read swear words too often.

 

[beafedor]

I also have bought cheap second hand books with hand written comments in them, highlights, damaged pages… What is so important about that anyways? Are you offended because you paid some money in exchange of a good that was damaged? I can understand that but nobody was injured so I would let go. Material objects are only as good as perishable men made things can.

 

[Newbie2]

Beside the point. Second hand bookstores buy up books by the hundreds. They have no time to browse them.

Actually, it’s quite to the point, at least one of the points (see below). The bookstore was the (immediate) previous owner. They bought the book from the owner, once removed. If this was a legal matter, you would have no claim against the owner previous to the bookstore.

You have the option of returning the book to the bookstore, or at least trying to do so. How can you be so sure that an employee of the store didn’t alter the book??

I certainly had the chance. But I did not. I do not expect self-appointed “do-gooders” editing the book before they sell them.

Nor would I. But methinks you’re blaming the wrong person.

Ah, but the point is the mutilation of the book. I would think that you would be upset if the Bible would be mutilated in a similar fashion. Now comes the surprise: “I would be supporting you”. Just because I do not revere the Bible as “special”, I still would condemn anyone who defaces or destroys it. That seems to be the difference between us.

Point taken.
Actually, no, it wouldn’t bother me. As a Christian, I am familiar with people who want to alter Sacred Scripture. To me, it would be just the same as someone posting here on the CAF with an altered scripture posting (which happens more than one might expect). If I were Muslim, perhaps, I would take offense at the altering of the Koran.

Methinks there’s more than one issue here: censorship and the free exchange of goods.
Regarding censorship, I see your point, but do not necessarily agree. I watch more TV and movies than I read books, but there’s important similarities. I’d rather see, for example, the “real” HBO version of the Sopranos (with all the violence and f-bombs included) than watch the “sanitized” version on A&E, for example.

To me, as it appears to be to you, in this regard we are similar. If I bought a book where I expected foul language or objectionable situations, I’d have no complaint; but sometimes one gets surprised.I see movies all the time where I see as objectionable gratuitous sex scenes or unnecessary violence; to me if it does not serve the plot, it’s unnecessary and as such objectionable. Bad guys are supposed to act bad, and when they do, I’m neither shocked nor disappointed. But when they put in a deliberate and unnecessary reference to masturbation as in the first Transformers movie, I’m more disappointed than offended. If I were to see something inappropriate on, for example, EWTN, then I’d be offended.

As far as the free exchange of goods, I think your argument is moot. You bought a used book knowing full well the bookseller doesn’t screen their books, and you must have known of the possibility of someone making marks in the book (highlights, notes, deletions, etc.).

Now if you bought the book as new, then I think you’d have more standing.

Still…“Scum”…really? I’d be more apt to use that term for someone who ***added ***inappropriate material to the text, lol. I read far, far more theological texts than fiction and would be surprised to see someone adding foul language there…as most of the books I read are meant for theologians or theology students.

 

[Luvya]

Consolidated answer to all the posters. You are barking up the wrong tree. The point is not the store owner who buys books by the hundreds, trusting the sellers to be honest and not sell damaged goods. The point here is the process of damaging the merchandise and then sell it. Books in second hand stores are rare, they cannot be replaced on demand with an unmutilated copy. And even if they could that would be beside the point.

JonathonofOhio:

I think that it is funny that someone actually took the time to black out bad words in a book they read. I mean, they would have had to read the bad word in order to cover it up.

I agree that it is ironic. Every time I see **** words in some post on some strictly regulated website, I chuckle. After all the person, who wrote the software to modify the “dirty” words must have incorporated the list of these “dirty” words in the code itself. What a joke. The censor must use the “forbidden” words. (By the way, before someone takes offense: I am not criticizing this website for setting rules of behavior, declaring some words unacceptable. This is a private site, and the owners have every right to regulate behavior. We, who use the site must agree to these rules. The irony comes from the fact that the censors themselves had to use the “forbidden” words, to set up the filter for them, and I find that highly amusing.)

Barbkw:

Books aren’t sacred. The original owner of the book could just have well thrown the bound bunch of paper in the trash or recycled the book.

Certainly. Books are not “sacred”, but I hold them in high regard. Those people who engage in book burning or mutilation are scum in my eyes.

Neil_Anthony:

I guess you’re assuming that the person’s censoring was done for the sake of whoever bought the book?

Maybe they censored the words for themselves or their family.

I don’t assume anything. To censor for themselves is a farce, since they had to read it in order to strike them. If they did it for their family they should have kept it.

Newbie2:

You bought a used book knowing full well the bookseller doesn’t screen their books, and you must have known of the possibility of someone making marks in the book (highlights, notes, deletions, etc.).

I have no problem with the seller. I almost never buy new books. I buy hundreds of used ones, and the track record is very good. Sometimes I find wear and tear due to natural causes, but intentional mutilation is very rare. Naturally I scan them quickly to see their condition, and only buy them when I am satisfied. However such a “small” modification can only be discovered when one actually reads the book.

A question: why are you all so upset with the word scum? It is a very mild word. Is it because this scoundrel chose to censor out words which you find “dirty”? (I sure hope you do not feel some secret kinship to a rake like that? If this rascal would have mutilated the Bible in a similar manner, I would think you would be very upset about that. Wouldn’t you?

 

[Barbkw]

I use highlighter in the books I read. I’m probably therefore “scum”.

How hoity toity.

 

[nickybr38]

I use highlighter in the books I read. I’m probably therefore “scum”.

How hoity toity.

I full on write in my books, sometimes criticizing the author’s choice of words. GOODNESS! I’m terrible too eh?

 

[Luvya]

I use highlighter in the books I read. I’m probably therefore “scum”.

How hoity toity.

Truth be told, these non-sequitur “answers” are rather discouraging. I am pretty sure you know the difference between highlighting a text and obliterating it. So why did you choose to answer something which was never said?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t assume anything. To censor for themselves is a farce, since they had to read it in order to strike them. If they did it for their family they should have kept it.

Perhaps you haven’t considered the following reason to censor for oneself:

Perhaps the person who owned the book had spent years working on building up their respect and love for other people. Part of this effort involved creating a zone around himself that was conducive to respect and love for others. He may have done this by trying to make friends with others who shared his values, and by avoiding media that denigrated human beings. He had a book that was worth reading but was bothered by words that seemed to lower the dignity either of the characters using the words, or of other characters in the book. In order to avoid this way of speaking from subtly eroding the virtue he had built up over years, he crossed them out.

This is pretty typical. We try to control what goes in our ears and eyes, for ourselves and for our loved ones.

Now back to calling the person scum. You might disagree with what he does… but you’ve used a dehumanizing term for a person just because they want to get rid of a way of speaking. Are swear words worth more than this person? Does he really lose his human dignity, in your eyes, because he wants to get rid of swear words? Isn’t a human life worth more than that?

 

[Luvya]

Perhaps you haven’t considered the following reason to censor for oneself:

Perhaps the person who owned the book had spent years working on building up their respect and love for other people. Part of this effort involved creating a zone around himself that was conducive to respect and love for others. He may have done this by trying to make friends with others who shared his values, and by avoiding media that denigrated human beings. He had a book that was worth reading but was bothered by words that seemed to lower the dignity either of the characters using the words, or of other characters in the book. In order to avoid this way of speaking from subtly eroding the virtue he had built up over years, he crossed them out.

This is pretty typical. We try to control what goes in our ears and eyes, for ourselves and for our loved ones.

Makes no sense. He already read those words. If he wants his loved ones to be protected, he can simply not give them the offending book. As a matter of fact, striking out words and giving the book to read is the worst possible strategy, especially when giving it to children. They will be extra curious. Let’s not forget that there is a huge redundancy built into the language. To figure out which word is missing is an easy task. So his endeavors of “sanitizing” are futile.

Now back to calling the person scum. You might disagree with what he does… but you’ve used a dehumanizing term for a person just because they want to get rid of a way of speaking. Are swear words worth more than this person? Does he really lose his human dignity, in your eyes, because he wants to get rid of swear words? Isn’t a human life worth more than that?

The person’s life is not in jeopardy. I certainly do not consider such a person worthy of respect.

 

[jtodisco]

Luvya,

I will start by saying that as an avid reader myself I can understand you being a little frustrated over this book. What I can’t understand is your exaggerated frustration. So someone who previously owned this book defaced it? It’s a book. And, as others have pointed out, you could try returning or exchanging it explaining to the store owner what you discovered upon buying this book. Were it some rare book that ought to be preserved for its cultural and historical value then I could sympathize with your outrage, but since I doubt it was a first edition of Leaves of Grass or a Gutenberg Bible then I think you are just overreacting.

As for your question of whether or not people’s reactions would be different were this book the Bible instead of whatever book it was that you bought, I can’t speak for everyone here but my reaction would be no different. It’s a book. Sure, I hold Sacred Scripture in high regard but with as many millions and millions of copies of the Bible that are out there I am not so naive as to think some of them don’t get abused. It is not as if by defacing a Bible someone can harm my faith or harm God. To quote a famous Christian book-lover and writer:

“A man can no more diminish God’s glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, ‘darkness’ on the walls of his cell.” - C.S. Lewis

So, I will end by saying that I am sorry that you were inconvenienced, but at the same time if this is the worst thing that happens to you in your daily life then I’d suggest being very thankful for having such an easy existence (and if it is not among the worst things, then perhaps you should let this petty annoyance go and turn your focus elsewhere).

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Makes no sense. He already read those words. If he wants his loved ones to be protected, he can simply not give them the offending book. As a matter of fact, striking out words and giving the book to read is the worst possible strategy, especially when giving it to children. They will be extra curious. Let’s not forget that there is a huge redundancy built into the language. To figure out which word is missing is an easy task. So his endeavors of “sanitizing” are futile.

Well, it sounds like you believe that the person blocked out the words in an attempt to censor it for whoever bought it at the bookstore. It’s the only way I can make any sense of your strong objection. I can understand your objection if that is the assumption, although I wouldn’t judge the person as harshly as you seem to do.

As for ‘protecting’ oneself from such words, I’m not sure you understand. It doesn’t matter if we read the word once while crossing it out. The idea is to reduce the amount of dehumanizing words we hear and increase the amount of humanizing words. We can achieve that by crossing out the words the first time you read the book even for yourself when you read it the second time. It’s not about protecting ourselves from ever seeing a word, its about reducing the amount of times our subconscious gets to hear something.

If you haven’t ever tried this yourself, you might not understand. But we do slowly become more like the people we surround ourselves with. If we spend time in the company of angry people, or loving people, or hateful people, or positive people, or negative people, we will become more like them, all things being equal.

 

[Luvya]

I will start by saying that as an avid reader myself I can understand you being a little frustrated over this book. What I can’t understand is your exaggerated frustration. So someone who previously owned this book defaced it? It’s a book.

You think I overreacted? Maybe I did. But I feel very strongly about books. I have seen book burnings and the feeling remains alive. Book mutilation and burning are an affront to civilization, to freedom of thought. Only barbarians do that. Civilized persons do not, even if they disagree with the contents of some books. Have you read Fahrenheit 451 by Bradbury? Just curious.

So, I will end by saying that I am sorry that you were inconvenienced, but at the same time if this is the worst thing that happens to you in your daily life then I’d suggest being very thankful for having such an easy existence.

It is not the end of the world. But seeing the barbarians and vandals in action is still pretty frustrating.