Mein Kampf, the hate-filled
political manifesto written by Germany’s one-time powerful ruler, Adolf Hitler,
is the second best-selling non-fiction book in Germany. That’s quite a rebound for a book that was
banned for 70 years. Maybe absence does
make the heart grow founder. People want
what they can’t get. When a new Germany
had a chance to read and own what generations since World War II could not get,
it went wild. Should such a book be
banned or printed is not the subject for this piece, but for the record I
don’t believe in banning a book, no matter how offensive or explosive. What’s interesting about there-launch of The
Fuhror’s diatribe is that Germany required any republishing of the book must be
accompanied by criticism. This means the
book contains someone else’s words – other than that of the author’s and those
words contrary to any other book published, must undermine, damn, and protest
the very words in the book. Should such
a requirement be made of other books? Of
all books?
I
remember reading Mein Kampf, sans the
criticism, while a young boy in junior high school. I was probably 13, a Jewish Brooklyn boy,
reading it some 35 years since the world’s bloodiest war ended, one that almost
wiped out the planet's oldest religion.
Now it’s another 35-36 years since that reading.
It’s
an interesting concept – to attach criticism, analysis, or a review of a book
to the book itself. This could solve a few problems, while creating others.
First,
who’d choose who writes the criticism and who edits what’s said? I don’t want phony criticism or soft analysis
being passed off as real, unbiased scrutiny.
Second,
should we have a critic to respond to the critical analysis, also in the
book? Maybe the critic made a mistake or
substituted opinion and prejudice for fact and fairness?
Third,
would the attached criticism get revised over time? For instance, tastes change, perspectives are
altered with the uncovering of new facts, and time passing allows for new
insights to sprout up.
Maybe
putting criticism into a book’s foreword or conclusion would help readers
better understand what they just read.
Young, impressionable minds should know the other side to hotly debated
political, religious, and social welfare topics. Just as newspapers have an editorial and an
op-ed and letters-to-the-editor available for the sharing of diverse viewpoints
on a news story, maybe books need to allow for equal time as well.
But
something seems wrong about the idea of adding comments and writings of others
to a book. This isn’t a food review site, where you try to weigh whether to eat
somewhere based on the quantity and quality of reviews. A book is an author’s creation. An author has
no obligation to acknowledge “the other side” or be forced to have someone
criticize them.
Free
speech can’t be forced – we can’t require authors to get someone else to
incriminate their work. But wouldn’t the
reader be served well if he or she can consider all sides, all facts in
one-stop-shopping books?
Maybe
authors need to do a better job of examining all views and facts – and to do less
advocating. But if the author is reduced
to being a researcher and blandly stating information that requires readers to
determine their fate, what good is the writer if he doesn’t speak up, connect
the dots, and not only share judgment but also offer solutions, raise
questions, or whine about something?
Mein Kampf requires
criticism in order to give readers a better perspective of the historical significance
– and mistaken beliefs – of Hitler. Or should that book be treated like all
other books -- and be published freely
without scolding or explanation?
What’s
next, publication of the Koran with a line-by-line criticism? Will the Islamaphobics blame a religion for
terrorism and publish their Bible with Kampf-like annotations?
Maybe
someone will reprint our Constitution and then contain side-by-side criticism
of how our government is corrupt, prejudiced, and incompetent.
Actually,
I can see a whole book line dedicated to containing criticism and setting the
record straight. Imagine Trump or
Clinton or Cruz having criticism printed inside their own books. Or if every memoir included a chapter by the
subject’s critic? Now that would make
for interesting reading, create controversy, and begin to better inform the
reading public.
Hitler
was one of the most despised human beings and his book may be nothing but hate,
lies, and crazy thoughts but God Bless America. Every voice deserves to be
heard, and all books should be published without the requirement of
criticism. But it is an interesting
idea, especially if taken up voluntarily.
2016 Book Marketing & Book Publicity Toolkit
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.