41

It, and other London works, promoted individualism and attacked totalitarianism. Let's go back to the plot of The Call of the Wild. Rereading it, there are a few main incidents that jump out at me as part of a larger trend: Buck's attack in Seattle on the "stout man, with a red sweater"[1] who threatens him with a hatchet and club. His rivalry with Spitz ...


33

The reality is that, from the perspective of a pro-government stance, 1984 promotes the idea that the government shouldn't be involved in your private lives, and that it's a quick step from government monitoring to government abuse and overreach. It promotes civil disobedience, and fighting for human rights and liberties in your own personal way. It promotes ...


31

Because of the author's socialist views. From Banned Books Week: Generally hailed as Jack London’s best work, The Call of the Wild is commonly challenged for its dark tone and bloody violence. Because it is seen as a man-and-his-dog story, it is sometimes read by adolescents and subsequently challenged for age-inappropriateness. Not only have objections ...


22

The UAE banned it because: "it contained text or images that goes against Islamic values, most notably the occurrence of an anthropomorphic, talking pig." - from Wikipedia Vietnam has the book censored due to its involvement with communism. Kenya likely has it banned due to the nature of the book, it: criticizes corrupt leaders who amass wealth and ...


11

Searching for Doyle's works banned in USSR in 1929 yields nothing about The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, save for this question and one comment on LiveJournal. However, searching the Russian Wikipedia article for censorship in USSR, I found an entry about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Maracot Deep. The novel was published in USSR in 7 chapters (while it ...


7

You can make an argument for anything, really. It just depends on whether it's a good argument. I'd argue that the common interpretation of Fahrenheit 451 as being about government censorship isn't a very good interpretation. What fits much better is the one that the author himself intended: Fahrenheit's not about censorship, it's about the moronic ...


5

I'm pretty sure the answer is No. From checking the internet, it seems that the film was but the book wasn't. Some sources that might help: Books banned by governments- Wikipedia Most commonly challenged books in the US - Wikipedia Banned books and list of reasons why - Postdesk Banned books - banned books org Ctrl - F 'danish' comes up with nothing on ...


4

Here are some excerpts from Azar Nafisi's introduction to a new edition of the novel (published, and slightly edited, on The Guardian's website, 5/13/2006) that may indicate why it was banned by the Iranian government. In brief, it criticized the state of society and government in Iran at the time, and also talked about "love and eroticism" in a way that ...


3

Have you been to a library recently? In olden times, libraries had books. Lots of books. That was how you learned things. When newspapers and magazines came along, libraries added newspapers and magazines. When videotapes and DVDs came along, libraries added videotapes and DVDs. Each time they cut down on their books to make room. When the Internet came ...


3

This subject is covered in most detail in the book "Limping Fate". Unfortunately, there is no English translation yet. This book is written in a form of two interleaved novels (not unlike Master and Margarita). The first novel, sometimes published separately under the same name, describes a few days in life of a Soviet writer. The second, also published ...


2

I don't think anybody can have a definite answer here. My understanding is that the same Mak Sim portrayed by someone else (say Adamov of the previous generation, or Kazantzev, or even Efremov) would go unnoticed by both начальство and the audience alike. Начальство was irritated by the authors much more than by a character. Recall how popular were they, ...


1

To me the censorship angle is there on the surface, but when you look more deeply, if you wanted to argue that it wasn't about censorship, the book itself does support that: He does clearly say in the book that the people slowly stopped caring about books, and most didn't mind the Firemen burning the books. People just wanted to live a life of fast driving ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible