The Evils of “Should”
Books are important. The books you read say a lot about who you are and what you consider important, and they are culture-building. Governments know this, which is why, historically, books were the first targets of censorship. Nowadays we have added TV, newspapers, the internet, social media, art, and even messages printed on clothing.
 | Censorship has been around for a long time. In ancient Rome, a censor was a magistrate who held censuses (the count of people) and had complete control over the whole public and private life of every citizen. They were the conservators of public morality. they were not simply to prevent crime or particular acts of immorality, but rather to maintain the traditional Roman character, ethics, and habits. It was this authority of the Roman censors which eventually led into the modern meaning of “censor” and “censorship”, officials who review published material and forbid the publication of material judged to be contrary to “public morality. I’m talking about the idea that the government “should” have a say in what you see, hear, read, or otherwise communicate. But, we live in the U.S., we don’t do that anymore, right? Wrong, Censorship is ubiquitous, and it slips into the public consciousness in seemingly innocent ways, all without using the word censor. The word “should” is used instead. |
|---|---|
 | The word “should” carries significant weight and implication. It is judgmental and intended to enforcement of a rule or method. It implies that the speaker’s perspective is superior and that there is a singular correct way to act or think. Sounds like censorship to me. The statement “you should” shut down open dialogue and exploration of different perspectives. Isn’t that the purpose of censorship? “Should” creates feelings of guilt that the listener is not meeting certain expectations. That is an underhanded bid for compliance. You want to meet expectations, be seen as intelligent and one of the “in” group, don’t you? |
I recently read in medium.com, an article called Announcing the Literati Project by Jordan Hall. She said “I read a lot of books. A person doing research uses cites ass a hint of where to look next.And in spite of the social web and two decades of e-commerce, I still have a hell of a time making sure that I am focusing on exactly the best books that I should be reading right now. That sounds innocent enough. She wants an efficient was to select books, something better than querying Amazon. This sounds like a good idea, but she used contains the word “should”.
there are a number of things wrong with this. First, what is good taste? Good taste is something censors think they have and the rest of us don’t.
If you are studying something in school, there will be a recommended reading list, and you don’t have to look any further. If you are researching, you follow cites for a hint of what to read next. For enjoyment , her idea is to  pay curators for reading a lot of books, cultivating good taste and taking the time to share it clearly and effectively with us.
Second this sounds like a marketing scheme. Her idea doesn’t include an author paying for a recommendation, but how could they resist such an obvious step to monetize this idea? There are a lot of sites on the internet doing exactly that. Oh, but the Literati project would be “above” that. Its name alone would ensure that. Really?
The problem is the word “should”. I suppose instead of saying, “…making sure that I am focusing on exactly the best books that I should be reading right now,” She could have said, “recommending books I would enjoy.” That doesn’t sound nearly as elite though.
Peyton Place, Grace Metalious’s 1956 debut novel, was banned in several cities and countries, including Canada, and many libraries and states for being obscene. The book’s depiction of sex and violence in a small New England town during World War II was considered morally corrupting “trash” by some critics. On 6 December 1957, the original Dell edition of Peyton Place was placed on the banned list, remaining there until 11 February 1971.
Despite the controversy, Peyton Place became a bestseller and the most read book in America at the time. It went on to be adapted into a major box office success film in 1957, a TV series that ran from 1964–1969, and a follow-up novel, Return to Peyton Place, published in 1959. The book’s impact on the book industry and its influence on the term “Peyton Place” to describe any small town with scandalous secrets endure to this day. Clearly censors do not speak for everyone.
Looking for your next favorite book about strong women who beat the odds add find a happy ending?
