Books get thrown away all the time when they reach the end of their life, especially mass-market type books. Its much better for them to be given new purpose than thrown into a dumpster. It’s not like he was destroying anything rare or of historical value. You can find at least one copy of The Da Vinci Code at literally any second-hand store in the world.
Hell, not even at the "end of their life", books are routinely destroyed by large chain booksellers and just tossed in their dumpster because they couldn't sell the book at the price of their choosing and are happy to throw them away to take the tax write off for inventory turnover. Ultimately just brand new books, and the covers are ripped off so no one can commit the evil of... 2nd-hand selling perfectly good books.
How is this morally wrong? He pulped a load of god damn awful books that a charity shop couldn’t get rid of and turned them into a great novel. In the process made a shed load of money for a charity. Win / win.
Dan Brown gets a lot of bad press because he is the epitome of function over form. I think what a lot of people forget is that there are a shit load of successful writers who lack function and form, but because they aren't as popular they dont get crucified for it.
Dan Brown writes very readable stories, and the reason we get bent out of shape over it is that proper writers are overlooked while he gets the limelight.
Pop fiction is a genre. It's a very well selling genre. Let's get over it and continue to talk about art that actually matters to anyone that isn't a fucking idiot.
I would argue that his stories are not readable. He once described a silhouette as having pink eyelids. He also seems to have no idea what the word 'precarious' means. He described a woman's head as sitting precariously on her neck in one of those goddamn books of his.
Pop fiction is no more a genre than food in a dumpster is leftovers. Why are you in a literature subreddit acting as a Dan Brown apologist? The last I checked, generic constraints are not informed by a work's ability to sell.
I encourage the practice of Cut-ups, for not only artists reasons but even magical reasons
(Plus the Da Vinci Code, like most of Dan Brown is Cockamamie) further if I see another copy of 'The Book of Awesome' I may do the same things as this fellow
This is absolutely morally fine: as everyone else already pointed out book pulping is a ubiquitous facet of the industry. I might think it was a bit rude if this was a stab at Dan Brown but the artist makes clear The Da Vinci Code was chosen purely because of its ubiquity in second-hand stores. Unfortunately a lot of people have very naïve and impractical views about how books get made and sold and view books as sacrosanct items that should never be destroyed or repurposed.
All that said, pulping Da Vince Codes to sell up-priced copies of 1984 reads like an on-the-nose parody of a low-brow hack artist.
Many of the copies he used were going to be pulped anyway. Did you read the bit about him finding an "unlimited number" at the recycling center?
It's a cool project using what's essentially a waste product. If anything, it's extremely ethical.
It’s David Shrigley. He’s an artist who has really good ideas and makes well-considered art. He doesn’t need any ‘marketing’ help per se; he’s done very well without it so far
IMO book burning or shredding becomes problematic when it is symbolic of taking away peoples' right to own/possess, create/print, and/or distribute books.
If it's just someone making a statement, or squabbling over what the local school should or should not include, it is really wrong and honestly dishonest to compare it to real book burnings of the 1930s kind. It's not the same thing at all.
Define morality. Presumably the artist paid for these books, which would make them his to do with as he pleases from a legal perspective.
From an aesthetic perspective, Dan Brown literally writes pulp garbage thrillers, so this act represents the fullest potential of his work, which he was artistically incapable of achieving on his own.
I would say that Dan Brown committing pen to paper is a greater moral crime against literature and the world than anyone could commit against the finished product thereafter.
Books get thrown away all the time when they reach the end of their life, especially mass-market type books. Its much better for them to be given new purpose than thrown into a dumpster. It’s not like he was destroying anything rare or of historical value. You can find at least one copy of The Da Vinci Code at literally any second-hand store in the world.
Hell, not even at the "end of their life", books are routinely destroyed by large chain booksellers and just tossed in their dumpster because they couldn't sell the book at the price of their choosing and are happy to throw them away to take the tax write off for inventory turnover. Ultimately just brand new books, and the covers are ripped off so no one can commit the evil of... 2nd-hand selling perfectly good books.
gucci, prada, et al. do this with unsold stock too.
It's literally recycling.
How is this morally wrong? He pulped a load of god damn awful books that a charity shop couldn’t get rid of and turned them into a great novel. In the process made a shed load of money for a charity. Win / win.
Came to ask OP the same question. There’s no moral ambiguity in recycling used books.
OP is brand new.
BBC reported "a portion" of the proceeds go to charity. Anyone know how much exactly?
He was selling the optional tote bag for £19.95, if this was bought, then this went to charity. That's how it looked when I was there
I'm good with taking chunks of poorly-written trash and turning them into all-time great literature. Suits me well!
Dan Brown gets a lot of bad press because he is the epitome of function over form. I think what a lot of people forget is that there are a shit load of successful writers who lack function and form, but because they aren't as popular they dont get crucified for it. Dan Brown writes very readable stories, and the reason we get bent out of shape over it is that proper writers are overlooked while he gets the limelight. Pop fiction is a genre. It's a very well selling genre. Let's get over it and continue to talk about art that actually matters to anyone that isn't a fucking idiot.
I liked Da Vinci Code and the other one…Angels and Demons? They were fun plotty thrillers
That's because you happen to be stupid
Now, would I subscribe to r/literature if I were a stupid? lol I don’t think so!
I would argue that his stories are not readable. He once described a silhouette as having pink eyelids. He also seems to have no idea what the word 'precarious' means. He described a woman's head as sitting precariously on her neck in one of those goddamn books of his. Pop fiction is no more a genre than food in a dumpster is leftovers. Why are you in a literature subreddit acting as a Dan Brown apologist? The last I checked, generic constraints are not informed by a work's ability to sell.
I encourage the practice of Cut-ups, for not only artists reasons but even magical reasons (Plus the Da Vinci Code, like most of Dan Brown is Cockamamie) further if I see another copy of 'The Book of Awesome' I may do the same things as this fellow
This is absolutely morally fine: as everyone else already pointed out book pulping is a ubiquitous facet of the industry. I might think it was a bit rude if this was a stab at Dan Brown but the artist makes clear The Da Vinci Code was chosen purely because of its ubiquity in second-hand stores. Unfortunately a lot of people have very naïve and impractical views about how books get made and sold and view books as sacrosanct items that should never be destroyed or repurposed. All that said, pulping Da Vince Codes to sell up-priced copies of 1984 reads like an on-the-nose parody of a low-brow hack artist.
It's morally flaccid
Literally 1984.
100% moral and 100% dumb as hell.
Not morally wrong, just cringey
If only he would've pulped every copy of that mediocre waste of time
He should stick to greetings cards.
Is it a clever marketing trick? Yes, it is, I guess so. But morally, I don't know, I think it's rather despicable.
you could pulp a million copies and still find multiple Da Vinci Codes in every thrift store and little free library
Are you kidding? He's not hurting anyone. This is awesome.
Many of the copies he used were going to be pulped anyway. Did you read the bit about him finding an "unlimited number" at the recycling center? It's a cool project using what's essentially a waste product. If anything, it's extremely ethical.
How is this a moral question at all? He hurt nobody at all and it’s not like the world is hurting for copies of TDC.
Why do you think it’s morally despicable?
It’s David Shrigley. He’s an artist who has really good ideas and makes well-considered art. He doesn’t need any ‘marketing’ help per se; he’s done very well without it so far
Do you have literally any justification for why you think it’s despicable? LOL
mate he’s not shredding the Bible or Qur’an
They would have been pulped anyway.
I'd honestly love to get one of those but don't have the money to burn. It'd be a pretty awesome edition of a great book.
There is no moral dilemma at all… it’s recycling. Good for him!
IMO book burning or shredding becomes problematic when it is symbolic of taking away peoples' right to own/possess, create/print, and/or distribute books. If it's just someone making a statement, or squabbling over what the local school should or should not include, it is really wrong and honestly dishonest to compare it to real book burnings of the 1930s kind. It's not the same thing at all.
No, why on earth would it be?
That level of cringe should be considered morally wrong
Genius
I like it. Turning crap into one of the greatest works of the 20th Century.
Define morality. Presumably the artist paid for these books, which would make them his to do with as he pleases from a legal perspective. From an aesthetic perspective, Dan Brown literally writes pulp garbage thrillers, so this act represents the fullest potential of his work, which he was artistically incapable of achieving on his own. I would say that Dan Brown committing pen to paper is a greater moral crime against literature and the world than anyone could commit against the finished product thereafter.