Any attempt to ban a future Trump book would just make us more like him

An open letter calling on publishers not to offer book deals to Trump and his administration is unhelpful and misguided, writes Rupert Hawksley

Goodbye, for now: Donald and Melania Trump board Air Force One on Wednesday (Getty)

So, is this the last we’ll hear from Donald Trump? I certainly hope not. Let me clarify that a bit. I am no supporter of Trump and his administration, whose actions over the past four years have dragged America to a dark and grubby place. But it is nevertheless wrong to try and silence them. Democracies are built on freedom of speech – not an original point, perhaps, but one that cannot be repeated often enough.

It was surprising and disappointing, therefore, to read an open letter, published this week and signed by more than 500 writers and literary professionals, calling for publishers not to offer book deals to Trump and his team. If it sounds petty, that’s because it is.

The first part of the letter, organised by novelist Barry Lyga and signed by big name authors including Celeste Ng and Chuck Wendig, begged publishers not to “enrich” those who served in Trump’s soiled administration. I wouldn’t be averse to seeing Trump and his allies on their beam ends, either, but effectively calling for financial sanctions strikes an unhelpful, rancorous note – particularly so in light of recent civil unrest in the country.

Things get more sinister as the letter concludes, though. “We believe in the power of words,” it states, “and we are tired of the industry we love enriching the monsters among us, and we will do whatever is in our power to stop it.” Strip away the hyperbole and the message is stark: we don’t want to hear from those we disagree with. This phrase, “Whatever is in our power to stop it”, is particularly troubling. What, exactly, do they mean? Is it a threat? What it isn’t is the language of a society hoping to heal and to rediscover tolerance of one another.

For those at the back, this is how it works: people write books (or proposals for books), publishers decide what they want to sell, and consumers decide what they want to buy. There is choice at every stage of the process. If people don’t want to read Trump’s book, they won’t buy it. Individuals make that decision; not a self-appointed group of cultural gatekeepers. It hardly needs spelling out how slippery that slope can become.  

And yes, publishers have a responsibility. Which is why it is perfectly possible to both support Twitter’s decision to ban Trump and strongly oppose this open letter. Twitter provided Trump with a platform from which he could rabble rouse and incite violence – unedited. Publication of a book is a far more rigorous process, meaning that hate speech and violent rhetoric can be edited and toned down where necessary. It is a crucial difference.

To finish on a slightly lighter note, I also take issue with this feeble letter for purely selfish reasons: I would really like to read Trump’s book. Oh, come on! It will be fascinating. How the hell will he attempt to make sense of and justify the last four years? What scores will he attempt to settle? And will it have any words? Or just pop-up pictures and lots of 280 character captions?

If and when it is published, I’ll be first in line to pick up a copy. You may not want to join me; but that, of course, is your choice.

Yours,

Rupert Hawksley

Senior commissioning editor, Voices