Review by little_wonderland -- The Banned Book about Love

[little_wonderland]

[Following is the official OnlineBookClub.org review of "The Banned Book about Love" by Scott Hughes.]

---

2 out of 4 stars

---

Share This Review

---

The original title was I Love Brock Turner. It was banned on Amazon because of a negative response, which, when you consider the original title, is quite understanding. The book's genre is nonfiction. It is an essay, from my point of view, which is not a bad thing. It consists of some facts and some personal opinions. Scott Hughes explained why he loves Brock Turner in a simple way. Most people didn't even read his full explanation why he loves Brock Turner, which is a shame. This book is controversial and the original title screams with a different way of thinking. It brings awareness to unconditional love, which we often forget about.

This short book has five parts: "I Love Brock Turner", "Hate Doesn't Work as a Means", "It's Not the Details", "What Love Doesn't Mean", "A Note on Religion" and "The Work of Love". Respectively, Hughes explains his opinions on Brock Turner, hate, sex and alcohol, love, religion and importance of your own life.

The Banned Book about Love is a manifestation of an unpopular opinion, especially nowadays. This opinion can be called Love Your Enemy. The promotion of love is really strong here. The message of the book should be spread more. Spreading hatred is not a solution for everything, I agree on that with the author. To be honest, I was shocked from the beginning until the last part ("The Work of Love"). This last part reminded me to try to be understanding. It is the most important part of the book. I do admire the author for publishing it and for refusing to go with the crowd.

But I'm not saying I agree with everything. There are some details I want to mention, that are in the book. Hughes is very clear about a distinction between black and white. He used "black-and-white" phrase frequently. I don't believe people, actions, and emotions in particular, are black and white. Black and white distinction is almost fairytale-like, because it's so clear and easy to tell the difference. Like in a fairy tale there are good characters and bad characters. The real life and real people are more complicated than that.

The other thing that I don't agree with is how the author talked about religion. The first religion he mentions is Christianity. I'm a Christian myself. When I say "I'm Christian," and when, approximately, other forty or fifty percent of Christians say this sentence, we mean, "I'm Christian because of my parents. I was christened when I was an infant, so I couldn't choose to be something else." People often forget about this. The label "Christian" doesn't necessarily tell you if we are good or bad Christians (I'm speaking from personal experience). What Hughes made me think is that the only true Christian is the one that doesn't hate and obeys or listens to what Jesus said. I'm Christian but I hate Brock Turner. Does this mean I want Turner to "burn the scapegoat at the stake" or even dead? No. But I hate him for what he did and how he behaved afterwards. So what does that make me?

The problem is that Hughes provides us with explanations that love is complicated and hate is black-and-white. It is true that love is a complex, difficult-to-master emotion. And there are also different kinds of love. Love between friends, love between family, love between lovers, love between humans and their pets... I could go on and on. Hate, to me, has two levels. Number one is when you hate someone but you don't really want them to be harmed or to die. We just use the word hate but we don't always mean it. Number two is when you really hate someone and you want them to die (either by your own hands or by someone else's). This kind of hate is more problematic. The author talks about this second level of hate only - hate is irrational, makes people put on "black-and-white glasses, etc.

Hughes mentions alcohol and how drunk Turner was. I want to point out that medical or police reports of his level of alcohol in his body do not mean everything. Or maybe his snobbish father persuaded everyone Turner was too drunk and some people believe him. There is also this thing called alcohol (in)tolerance. I can't trust what Turner, his father or the media reports say about how drunk he was and if he was capable of raping someone. He managed to run after the two Swedish student found him and the victim. When he was so drunk he wasn't able to rape a woman (0.171% is a lot but to me "so drunk" is 0,3%, and American liquor he was drinking is not strong... or maybe it is for an American, I don't know), then how did he manage to get up on his feet and run so the two Swedish male students had to chase him?

Speaking of rape,

I'm not defending Brock Turner because he was only convicted of attempted rape, meaning as far as the conviction is concerned, he didn't put his penis inside of the victim's vagina.

Do you see the problem here? In 2016, no one can define rape so simply as

putting penis inside of woman's vagina (without woman's consent).

A definition from dictionary is, probably the most specific I've found,

Unlawful sexual intercourse or any other sexual penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth of another person, with or without force, by a sex organ, other body part, or foreign object, without the consent of the victim.

Wikipedia says that one of the effects of alcohol content between 0.100 and 0.199% is temporary erectile dysfunction. Now we know what rape is. So the argument that he wasn't able to rape her because he didn't put his penis inside of the woman's vagina (because of temporary erectile dysfunction he probably had at that moment) is not relevant.

Some people, and it looks like Hughes is one of them, believe the judge because he's the judge. The fact that he's corrupted by rich white people means, apparently, nothing. I have read a letter from the victim. From her point of view, she was raped. She described her condition and feelings very precisely. Do you think the victim wrote what she wrote to attract attention and to make people feel sorry for her? I, plus thousands of other people, choose to believe the victim's letter instead of what Turner and his family said to make Brock look innocent.

The Banned Book about Love has good points and bad points. The book raises a lot of questions and I don't think people should unreasonably criticize the author just because of the original title. Scott Hughes has some arguments why he loves Brock Turner. They don't really persuade me, but it is nice that he is honest and open about his opinions and explains them clearly.

I rate this book 2 out of 4 stars.

The reason is that The Banned Book about Love is something you don't read often. It reminded me that some people still believe in unconditional love. One star is for courage and the other star is for the writing style, which was simple and easy to follow. Another important note is that the author donated $210 to RAINN charity, which supports victims of sexual assault. That is a very noble act. I didn't give the book 4 stars because of arguments and perceptions of things I disagree with. On the other hand, if the author analyzed every detail and every point of view, the book would be too long and it wouldn't give the reader option of mentioning what is missing.

I think people who want to read about different perspectives and who like unpopular opinions should read The Banned Book about Love.

******
The Banned Book about Love
View: on Bookshelves | on Amazon

Like little_wonderland's review? Post a comment saying so!