What is your reason for sharing content that you yourself seem to consider morally wrong?
I agree that fiction should never be banned, but does that automatically mean all works of fiction, no matter how vile or even potentially dangerous they may be, should be shared and consumed?
This isn’t intended as criticism or a personal attack, it’s just a question born from genuine curiosity.
Don't worry, that's a very important question, and it's central to my project.
Here is the very first Quote I ever published on this blog, which may shed some light on it:
This is a huge, guiding principle for me.
A free society is built on the foundation that we must allow the people to speak - to argue, to offend, to be wrong, to be foolish, to be alarming. It requires exposure to bad ideas so that better ones can defeat them in the open. It requires collective trust that the people can hear something repulsive and reject it for themselves.
I'm really fired up now, so I'm going to keep going lol 👇
We must have faith in humanity, because we are the ones in charge of our own destiny. We are both the doctor and the patient.
We cannot allow our thought process to slip into bleak pessimism. But I fear that there are those who think:
"Everyone is stupid. And just below the surface, everyone is secretly evil. We must be protected from bad ideas, otherwise they will spread like a virus. If we let someone read books that support Nazism, they will become a Nazi. If we let someone read books defending pedophilia, they will become attracted to children. The only thing that prevents a normal person from building a bomb and mass-murdering people is the fact that they haven't read a book on how to build a bomb. Everyone, EVERY SINGLE PERSON, is like a goddamn landmine that is already armed and ready: all it takes is the right pressure to trigger their explosion."
Well I categorically reject that.
In fact, I think the exact opposite. I think that we need access to works that promote and defend terrible things, so that we can better address them, refute them, and prepare for them. You cannot fix something you cannot discuss.
Let me continue answering your original question with some even more specific, concrete examples of extremely offensive literature, and why I think it is important to preserve and document them:
"The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" by Philip R. Greaves II - This actually might have been the first book to get me interested in the subject of "suppressed books". What happened was that I was considering writing a little article about the most bizarre books ever self-published through Amazon. In my research, I found many references in old news articles: the massive public backlash over this book, Amazon flip-flopping over the question of whether to remove it, the author being arrested for obscenity after undercover law enforcement lured him into a sending a copy of his book across state lines, etc. But what I could NOT find was the actual book - not ANYWHERE. None of the coverage of it appeared to have looked at the book either. No one seemed to know what the hell the specific contents of the book even were! People who would benefit from having access to the book include: reporters, people interested in the history of self-publishing, people interested in the history of Amazon as a company, people interested in obscenity law, child protection organizations, and (perhaps most importantly) people who want to make fun of this really amateurish, poorly-written, hilarious 17-page little "book."
"Grit and Steel" - This was a cockfighting magazine that ran from 1899 to the early 2010s. Cockfighting is an abusive bloodsport, and it has appropriately been made illegal in the entire US now. But it has historically also been a big deal in the southern US, where this magazine was based and focused on. What if you were writing historical fiction that involved cockfighting? Are you only supposed to only use secondhand info from sources that are all biased against cockfighting (even if that bias may be appropriate in modern times)? Would that really give you correct information, and enough practical, specific details? What if you were writing about long-running niche magazines in the US? This one ran for 110 years and you're just supposed to never examine it? And this magazine is also involved in the history of Amazon and PETA, and could be an important source for anyone researching them.
"Playground Sex" by Peter Sotos - Tracking down and posting this unpublished manuscript from 1997 is one of the few concrete accomplishments I've actually had with this ongoing project of mine. The piece is brutal, but it is extremely unique and well-written. It is NOT for everyone, but there are many people who would want to read this, including those interested in: transgressive literature, "experimental" literature, Extreme Horror literature, Whitehouse / Power Electronics / Noise Music (which Sotos is strongly associated with), etc. As I stated in a previous post, Peter Sotos' writings are one of the very few examples of truly "sui generis" literature out there. If we accept that basic premise, then this book becomes even more important because it represents a crucial transition from the structure of his earlier works to his later ones. Specifically, this is the first work where he shifts from breaking things up into specific sections / parts / chapters, and instead begins writing in an unbroken dreamlike stream-of-consciousness fashion that shifts between topics with little warning, sometimes extremely vague and sometimes hyperfocused, perhaps intended to mirror the thought process behind sexual fantasizing? Well I'm going off on a bit of a tangent now, but the point is that just because something is repulsive doesn't mean it's not important.
I know this is a lot of stuff, but hopefully people can see a little better where I'm coming from now.
(Side Note: In your ask you said "sharing content that you yourself seem to consider morally wrong." But firstly, I don't consider the works I mentioned thusfar to be innately morally wrong in-and-of itself. These publications are just dead words, buried in pages. Even if the motivations behind their creation were repulsive, there will always be very valid reasons for someone to examine them firsthand. And secondly, you may have noticed that I've actually been very careful about what books I've chosen to publicly share thusfar. Even if I am committed to documenting and preserving these works, I still want to be careful about when, where, and how I present and contextualize these works, and even the question of whether I want to share them broadly or in a more targeted fashion. I'm still working all this out)
Always thought it was a little hilarious for Panchito to have boot spurs instead of actual chicken spurs because yk… he’s a chicken! I wonder how intentional that joke was— I’ve never heard anyone mention that fact before.
And so my little physical headcanon for Panchito would be for him to have chicken spurs (and be awfully proud to flaunt them though they seem roguish). Surely he’s daft enough to take part in a bloodsport, cockfighting IS a popular pastime in Mexico after all, I think this concept fits him very well.
Edit: as this was a draft from a bit ago I don’t really follow this HC anymore but I think it’s a cool idea in concept, but as some people in the discord and here shared an idea of his boot spurs being as something of a replacement or (non-temporary) stand in.
since it's a free day for thshipweek, how about an #unrequited #rarepair at #home?
hear me out. so, this girl hosts crowfighting at her place. one day she found this BEST BIRB contender: big n fluffy, three legs for kicking without falling, feathers shiny, jewel shiny, eyes shiny, etc. who is so big it crushes the competition really quickly. the girl loves to see it try anyway. so she invites other strong birds in Gensokyo for them to fight (not to the death). she grows to love the bird and tries to hug it every time, but the bird doesn't reciprocate often. (did I mention that it's a BIG FLUFFY SHINY BIRB?) It only reliably responds to the first-grade millet that she uses to attract birds for birdfighting.
and lo and behold, before long, she's in a situationship with a millet digger...
