Thread by @pashulman

I thought this episode was extra-silly but people are taking it more and more seriously. But it's still silly.

Books are taken out of print ALL THE DAMN TIME. Thankfully, we have libraries that collect them so they are still available to everyone.

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/status/1368568168516567040

I think the most remarkable thing about this whole debate is not conservative grandstanders and media reading from still-to-be-published Seuss books while studious ignoring the ones being taken out of print. Or the conflation of copyright owner choices with public censorship.

It's the absence of libraries in these discussions. Public libraries, academic libraries–these books are not locked up. They are still there. And if you're afraid about your libraries losing books, fund them better.

The idea that books are only available in the marketplace for individual purchase is just.. weird. And wrong.

It's not how most people have read most books for most of history. We own a few Seuss books (including two of the six being taken out of print) but we found many more when our kids were younger at our local library.

This is the honest truth.

https://twitter.com/marykir/status/1368672071178276865

And a further weird thing is the implicit notion that after a certain point of.. what? Fame? Notoriety? Canonization? All works of an author must continue to be in print. That's.. not true! And not reality!

There are plenty of books by famous authors that are not in print. Here are the works of Upton Sinclair. Just look at the ones published post-1925, the current public domain cutoff. How many of these can you find in print?

But but but he's famous? No kidding. Not all of his books are good and even ones that may not be great may not have enough of a market to keep in print. But you can find them all in a library.

What we are seeing is a collision of expecting any work to be available, new, in the marketplace (never true) with copyright locking up many works that are not that old (frustrating), and a fear from a corner of the country that this is the path to banning ideas.

This would be a huge mistake. What Vancouver did in 2014 is exactly right: "The library decided to keep the book on the shelves, but stop reading it at storytime, and only promote it as an example of how cultural depictions have changed."

https://twitter.com/dgardner/status/1368675355347795974

So to my librarian followers, I urge you to keep these books around. This is what libraries are for. You don't have to stick them in front of kids. But they should still be available for all sorts of other reasons.

Disney’s Song of the South is the right analogue. It was last in theaters I think in 1986 (when I saw it) but it’s never been released on video in the US & isn’t available on Disney+ though all other Disney films are. I understand it’s been the subject of years of internal debate

Should Disney be forced to make it available? This 1940s adaptation of Joel Chandler Harris’s stories further laundered probably the most influential & toxic works about slavery & the Old South to new generations of children. No, it should not be forced to do so.

Should scholars, critics, & other interested viewers be able to access the film? I think so, and it’s apparently available as a DVD in at least 86 libraries. And Disney can’t shut that down now.

Anyway support your libraries.

Oh, and remember the value of physical books and other media as opposed to electronic rental platforms. Once a library buys a physical copy, it’s always there and access can’t be—ahem—cancelled.