That Book Is Dangerous!: How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing

by Adam Szetela

An alarming exposé of the new challenges to literary freedom in the age of social media—when anyone with an identity and an internet connection can be a censor.

In That Book Is Dangerous!, Adam Szetela investigates how well-intentioned and often successful efforts to diversify American literature have also produced serious problems for literary freedom. Although progressives are correct to be focused on right-wing attempts at legislative censorship, Szetela argues for attention to the ways that left-wing censorship controls speech within the publishing industry itself.

The author draws on interviews with presidents and vice presidents at the Big Five publishers, literary agents at the most prestigious agencies, award-winning authors, editors, marketers, sensitivity readers, and other industry professionals to examine the new publishing landscape.

What he finds is mandatory sensitivity reads; morality clauses in author contracts; even censorship of “dangerous” books in the name of antiracism, feminism, and other forms of social justice. These changes to acquisition practices, editing policies, and other aspects of literary culture are a direct outgrowth of the culture of public outcries on X, Goodreads, Change.org, and other online platforms, where users accuse authors—justifiably or not—of racism, sexism, homophobia, and other transgressions. But rather than genuinely address the economic inequities of literary production, this current moral crusade over literature serves only to entrench the status quo. “While the right is remaking the world in its image,” he writes, “the left is standing in a circular firing squad.”

Compellingly argued and incisively written, the book is a much-needed wake-up call for anyone who cares about reading, writing, and the publication of books—as well as the generations of young readers we are raising.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Books About Books, Literature, Business, Cultural, Criticism

288 pages, Hardcover

Published August 12, 2025

About the author

Adam Szetela earned his Ph.D. from the Department of Literatures in English at Cornell University. Before that, he was a visiting fellow in the Department of History at Harvard University. He writes for The Washington Post, The Guardian, Newsweek, and other publications.

Reviews

[J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pros:
- a look into the growing left-wing censorship of books and how the social media firestorm intended to help promote more diversity in publishing is actually doing the direct opposite
- Szetela draws mostly from interviews of students, teachers, editors, acquisitions agents, vice presidents and presidents of publishers, and of sensitivity readers to form a comprehensive picture of what the literary landscape looks like now
- I rarely see discussions of class and wealth and how that fits into the picture of publishing, and it is clearly something Szetela feels very strongly about. He spends a good amount of time showcasing how these people are getting left behind, regardless of any other identities they might have
- there are a lot of interesting points that are made, including how the majority white editors and publishing agents are now "experts" in what is/isn't an authentic minority experience and often bar the door to anyone who doesn't fit in their pre-conceived notions of race/queerness/disability
- I also really valued the discussion of how many authors/editors are forced to out themselves as queer/disabled/etc. to have a seat at the table when many are not ready to come out yet (and that's okay!). Conversely, as somewhat stated above, others are denied access for not being "queer/disabled enough" (shoutout to all my bi folks in straight passing relationships: you're still queer!)
- the book doesn't just show what issues there are but also relates them back to broader political patterns and why the right is so ascendant; I personally think the use of the phrase "circular firing squad" is particularly apt
- calls out all the social media "activists" who believe that just saying "this is so wrong and this person is terrible" is the end all, be all of political action. Get wrecked.
- similarly, I have yet to see such a comprehensive analysis of how so much of moral purity culture is rooted in self-flagellation (as the author puts it) or self-reflection, neither of which encourage people to go out and administer change anywhere but in their own heads
- if the author wants you to take one thing away from this book, is that we should always be encouraging more reading, not less, and that no one should be purporting to talk for a group of millions, and more voices are better than micromanaging what one person says

Cons:
- the author very clearly is passionate about this subject and from his acknowledgements section likely just an irreverent and sarcastic type of person. Because of this, his tone and language throughout is very caustic and even rude, which I personally don't have too much issue with since same, but folks who are more used to more formal language will likely find this very jarring
- there are parts that you can see the author just really doesn't like a Thing or Concept and those sections become more heavy on his opinions than the evidence he has discovered. Luckily, these are relatively few (man this dude hates sensitivity readers. He does mildly have a point, but calm down lmao) and if anything, served to keep me actively engaged going "is this him or is this something that he has evidence for"
- the book does get repetitive at points; it is after all discussing a political ideology and as such things tend to circle back
- seriously tho why the hate for sensitivity readers and trigger warnings lol (he does have examples of how these things can be harmful that I do agree with, I just found it so funny how annoyed you could see he was lol)
- from the way he quoted it I think he really liked The Coddling of the American Mind which is uhhh not a good book lol (don't take my word for it, I do recommend listening to the If Books Could Kill episode on it. I will say, while I agree with Michael and Peter about most things, I have heard someone say that feelings are the most important thing, sadly.)

Overall:
I think this is a very important book, especially in this political climate, with so many issues immediately at hand. The core thesis of this novel is to let people read what they want and instead of just decrying things as harmful and needing them to be removed, rewritten, or flat out burned, fostering discussion about WHY these things are harmful, about HOW to avoid those sorts of things, and most importantly of all, to leave the damn kids alone.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is an impassioned critique of the censorious “Sensitivity Era” of today’s publishing and literary culture. Today, it’s common for rhetoric around offensive books to resemble the language of public health threats. Self-appointed authorities called “sensitivity readers” must be consulted (and well-paid) to search manuscripts for any content that might bring “harm” to its readers. Via social media, moral crusaders work to prevent books from being published or sold, accusing even well-meaning authors of various unforgivable “isms” and “phobias.”

Not only are these aggressive attacks carried out by progressives in the name of sensitivity hypocritical, the authors they target are typically progressives themselves – oftentimes members of minority communities the crusaders claim to be crusading for. As Szetela points out, such antics are not only counterproductive to progressive causes (causes the author, as a progressive, supports), they are a poor substitute for real political activism.

These behaviors and practices create a publishing environment in which authors, agents, and publishers work in constant fear of being cancelled by the PC police. Furthermore, they make it particularly difficult for poor and working class authors to get published because, unlike the progressive elite, they do not have the time or money to ensure their writing does not run afoul of sensitivity norms.

This book is a welcome defense of free speech and also provides needed balance to the “book banning” discourse that so often depicts the threat of censorship as coming exclusively from the political right.

[Darnell · Rating 4 out of 5]

My impression of this started somewhat negative and improved throughout. There were some early sections where I thought, "Yes, I also read that Kat Rosenfield article about YA Twitter" but the book began to distinguish itself with its various interviews within the publishing industry. They're all anonymous for obvious reasons, but he claims to have gotten time with some high-powered people in the publishing industry.

Then the class chapter begins with strong quotes from James Baldwin and Cornel West, and things ramp up from there. Some of this is preaching to the choir, albeit an ill-served choir, but I thought he also did a good job of specifically dismantling how certain social crusades are very mercenary, serving only their leaders and not the people they claim to represent.

The author quotes extensively from minority writers and it isn't (solely) a defensive maneuver; he's picked some insightful quotes. I didn't realize that bell hooks wrote so much about class, which may itself be indicative of her positioning in the modern field, and the quotes shifted my opinion of her.

On the other hand, this book already reads as outdated in some ways. The clearest is that it extensively discusses Twitter, even though it was renamed to X and the publishing industry decamped to BlueSky. Now, I know the publication process is slow, and research takes time, but Elon bought Twitter in 2022 and I'd really like an update on these elements.

[Thief of Pages (Ty) · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quick read but an excellent one! Blew through this over the weekend. Considering that I’m a huge book nerd, I may be a little biased when I say this but this book is one of the best examinations of the rise of ideological capture by the radical left that I’ve read. That’s not hyperbole. We get a clear as day picture of the utter insanity and ridiculousness that has damn near completely taken over the publishing industry. This book is incredibly well-researched and exposes the depth of far-left censorship and why this movement is both detrimental and destructive. Some of the shit in here will blow your mind while leaving you extremely frustrated and angry. Legit batshit crazy and nonsensical. As someone who constantly condemns and exposes the ignorance and insanity with the far-right, I absolutely must do and will do the same with the far-left. Both of these toxic parasitic extremes are destroying so many facets of our society and more people need to be outraged by it. This book is absolutely a must read. Highly recommended. Happy reading!

[Eva Helena · Rating 4 out of 5]

Thesislectuur :)

[Daniel Pearse · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really well done look at the little talked about leftwing movement for literary censorship. People easily talk about right wing censorship, but this is more innocuous and disturbing.

[I.D. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yup, pretty much bang on stuff here. I especially appreciated how few fucks the author gave and his total disdain for certain people and types he wrote about. It’s pretty much all one angry rant backed up with research and makes some good points.
Unfortunately, the focus on Twitter might seem passé already since the x murdering of the platform but the results still live on with other platforms so it’s still applicable. Good stuff.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

“Reading is a social experience, and today the experience is circumscribed by suspicion and groundless moral accusations” (p. 103).

I feel as if books are under attack in my country. Lula Dean's Little Library of Banned Books by Kirsten Miller gives a dramatic, albeit fictionalized, account of how conservatives in the United States are censoring works under the excuse that they are protecting children. That Book Is Dangerous! is a well-researched nonfiction account of how forces on the left are similarly censoring literature within the publishing industry.

Adam Szetela describes how much of the politically progressive censorship is done with the best of intentions—increasing diversity in young adult (YA) and children’s literature is a laudable goal—but the use of "morality clauses" in author contracts and "sensitivity readers,” along with social-media driven cancellation campaigns on novels before they have even been published—have been actively limiting free expression and literary creativity. This, in turn, has resulted in the publication of countless books in the last ten years that are bland and dull, with a “written by committee” feel. And while he focuses on literature designated for kids, Szetela makes clear that this cultural environment impacts readers—along with writers—of all ages:

“According to Bowker Market Research, young adults are not the biggest market for YA literature: ‘55% of buyers of works that publishers designate for kids aged 12 to 17—known as YA books—are 18 or older, with the largest segment aged 30 to 44, a group that alone accounted for 28% of YA sales. And adults aren’t just purchasing for others—when asked about the intended recipient, they report that 78% of the time they are purchasing for their own reading.’ Other sources estimate that ‘nearly 70 percent of all YA titles are purchased by adults.’ In large part, what people call the field of YA literature is a field of adults writing books for other adults. Given the reality that children under 12 are even less likely to buy books for themselves, and the other reality that some of these children cannot read books by themselves, the percentage of adult consumers is likely much higher for children’s literature. What I call the moral crusade over children’s and YA literature is, in large part, actually a moral crusade over literature written for adults.” (p. 116).

That Book Is Dangerous! is based on interviews with dozens of industry professionals, although many insisted on anonymity out of fear that their informed opinions could negatively affect their careers. Szetela also makes use of social science research that he conducted as a part of his graduate and doctoral education to back up his arguments. Still, there is no doubt a level of bias. In Chapter 3, the author expresses clear frustration at how the publishing industry, for all its posturing about social justice based on factors such as race and gender, ignores the role of class and economic inequality. He comes across as positively Marxist at times in his criticism of capitalism and almost certainly is left leaning in his own political belief system, although he never explicitly states what his positions are. In the Acknowledgements section, Szetela does point out that he grew up in poverty, living in “housing projects” (p. 203) and being the child of an immigrant father “who blew out his back and knees on the job before he died” (p. 203) and a mother who earned the family a meager income by washing “dishes in an old folks’ home’” (p. 203).

Overall, That Book Is Dangerous! is an excellent read and I recommend it to anyone who cares about books. The author writes that, “Above all, That Book Is Dangerous! is a case for reading books. That one has to make a case for reading books should indicate the stakes of this moral panic” (p. 182).

The Structure:

Introduction (p. 1).
Chapter 1: The Ideas of the Sensitivity Era (p. 9)
Chapter 2: The Behavior of the Sensitivity Era (p. 65)
Chapter 3: The Political Economy of the Sensitivity Era (p. 123)
Chapter 4: The Future of the Sensitivity Era (p. 169)

Additional Quotes:

“Because the prophets of presentism carve the world into simple moral categories—following [Ibram X.] Kendi’s dictums, authors and their fictional characters are either racists or antiracists, sexists or feminists, and so on—both their lack of nuance and their disdain for classical literature are understandable. ‘In what is considered the first major literary theory in the history of Western ideas,’ writes Philippe Richat, ‘Aristotle (Poetics, 335 BCE) proposes that the essence of tragedy as a major literary genre is the main character’s moral ambiguity.’ Moral ambiguity is not just a feature of Dr. Faustus, Oedipus Rex, and other tragedies. It is a feature of countless plays, poems, and novels that belong to the Western canon, what Harold Bloom calls ‘the school of the ages.’ To use Romeo and Juliet or Grimm’s Fairy Tales as cheap props in the modern theater of moral finger snaps is to avoid the discomfort of trying to understand the moral complexities of these complicated works” (p. 41).
*
“Unlike Einstein, whose research was scrutinized and debated by other scientists, many sensitivity readers require authors, their agents, and their publishers to sign nondisclosure contracts. This prevents public evaluation of a sensitivity reader’s work. If public evaluation of one’s work is central to fields of expertise, then it is unclear how sensitivity reading is a field of expertise. It is especially unclear how it is a field of expertise on par with physics. Yet the science analogy extends from physics all the way through medicine. As author Natalia Sylvester explains, ‘Much like one might ask a cardiologist to read their story about a cardiologist for accuracy, a sensitivity read helps ensure that the portrayal of characters and worlds unknown to the author ring true.’ Other authors believe that there is no difference between sensitivity readers and medical professionals at all. As a contributor to #WritingCommunity reflects, 'If I were writing about a doctor, I’d get a doctor to beta [read] it to make sure I got it right. Same difference.’” (p. 57).
*
“If a reader wants to purchase Keira Drake’s debut YA novel to form their own interpretation of it, like a thinking person, it means they support racism. If, however, they rate an unpublished novel based on a short Tumblr post and some screenshotted tweets, like an unthinking person, it means they are against racism. What one agent of color described to me as the ‘contingent of people taking issue—whether they read the book or not’ is what antiracism looks like on Twitter, Tumblr, and Goodreads. When ‘real lives’ are on the line, there is no time for reading. There is no time for thinking. Above all, there is no time for different interpretations. Like the moral crusade over comic books [in the late 1940s and early 1950s], there is only time to damage a writer’s reputation.” (pp. 71-2).
*
“Many sensitivity readers earn more per hour than public school teachers, daycare workers, bus drivers, firefighters, dentists, and doctors. According to one University, ‘As of March 2019 the average pay for a sensitivity reader was $0.0005-$0.01 per word. For a work of 60,000 words, you can expect to receive between $300 to $600.’ At an average reading speed of 250 words/minute, a 60,000-word manuscript will take four hours to read. This means sensitivity readers can make an average of $75 to $150 per hour. If they work 40 hours/week, they can make between $156,000 and $312,000 per year.” (p. 131).
*
“When moral entrepreneurs are not demanding a ‘seat at the table,’ they are pushing Sensitivity Inc.’s products. The biggest products are new definitions of racism, homophobia, patriarchy, and other buzzwords.. It is no coincidence that the largest redefinition mills—journalism and academia—cannot function without new content. Despite their dignified postures, journalists are just as much a part of capitalism as people who sell Air Jordans, iPhones, and pornography. They have to constantly produce new content.
This is especially true in the era of fast journalism where op-eds have taken the place of long-form, reported stories that take months to research and write. When a journalist, and I use that term loosely, purports to ‘unpack’ what Stephen King’s newest novel really means, by redefining what ableism or misogyny really mean, they are able to meet their Monday morning deadline. [...] At newspapers and magazines with slashed budgets, where fewer writers are responsible for more content, cultural criticism is grist for the mill. At websites where writers have to churn out a dozen or more op-eds per day—this is the model for click-driven advertising dollars—they only have time to write op-eds like ‘This Fantasy Novel is Fatphobic.’” (p. 144-5).
*
“There is a similarity between this ‘antiracism’ and the New Age spiritual circles one finds in San Francisco, Brooklyn, Madison, Boulder, and other places where affluent white liberals in gentrified neighborhoods gather to talk about their feelings. Throughout, one gets the impression that white people are more interested in looking in the mirror—a perennial source of embarrassment for ‘whiteness studies,’ given its aspiration to decenter ‘whiteness’ —than doing anything that even vaguely resembles political activism.” (p. 147).
*
The author acknowledges that in the United States, conservatives “are leading the legislative fight to censor books they dislike. Even a cursory glance at data from the American Library Association (ALA) will familiarize readers with the conservative crusade to ban children’s and YA books in libraries and schools. Whereas many liberals are driven by essentialism and presentism, many conservatives are driven by nostalgia for a moment when books were less progressive and authors and their characters less diverse.” (pp. 165-6).
*
“The prevalence with which people freely admit they never read, nor have any intention of reading, books they passionately criticize is another indicator of how decrepitly anti-intellectual literary culture has become. In the past, publicly announcing that you have no idea what you are talking about, because you have never encountered the object of discussion, would have been an embarrassing omission. Even the food critics of Yelp stick to reviewing restaurants they ate at. Today, the omission is worn as a badge of pride. Above all, That Book Is Dangerous! is a case for reading books. That one has to make a case for reading books should indicate the stakes of this moral panic.” (p. 182).
*
“13. I do not capitalize ‘black’ for the same reason that other writers do not capitalize ‘black.’ In his preface to Revolutionaries to Race Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics, political scientist Cedric Johnson, himself a black writer, elaborates: ‘My usage reflects the view that racial identity is the product of historically unique power configurations and material conditions. This view contradicts the literary practice common to much Black Power activism, where racial descriptors are capitalized to denote distinctive, coherent political community and assert affirmative racial thinking.’ Cedric Johnson,Revolutionaries to Race Race Leaders: Black Power and the Making of African American Politics (Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 2007), xvii.” (p. 206).

***************************************************************************

[Image: Book Cover]

Citation:
Szetela, A. (2025). That book is dangerous!: How moral panic, social media, and the culture wars are remaking publishing. The MIT Press.

Title: That Book Is Dangerous!: How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing
Author(s): Adam Szetela
Year: 2025
Genre: Nonfiction - Contemporary Events, Social Studies
Page count: 288 pages
Date(s) read: 11/14/25 - 11/17/25
Book 244 in 2025
***************************************************************************

[Jason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Adam Szetela's 2025 book That Book Is Dangerous! looks at the phenomenon of social justice activism in the field of young adult literature, particularly some of the absurd cancellations that occurred in the late 2010s and early 2020s over notions of authenticity and cultural appropriation. To be clear, these two concepts aren't on the whole absurd--they're certainly conversations worth having--but the outrage mobs that led books not to be published and drove authors offline (or to make coerced apology videos reminiscent of ISIS hostages) over tenuous accusations of harm are illiberal and...well, anti-intellectual. Szetela covers this topic thoroughly, yet at times, as snarkily as possible. I get it, but the tone sometimes makes this itself feel like yet another culture war screed.

Where the book really shines is in the second section, where Szetela makes the case that modern concepts of diversity are largely superficial: privileging superficial racial and ethnic identity markers over diversity of social class and life experience, with the effect that diverse voices in literature often amount to people with differing skin tones who pretty much all went to the same elite schools and universities, inhabit the same handful of coastal cities, and extol the same progressive values. Reading modern literature and seeing just how uniformly bourgeois much of it is, it's hard not to think he's correct. It's probably a cliché in reviewing a nonfiction book to say this might have worked better as a few shorter articles than a full-length book, but that's indeed the case with That Book Is Dangerous!

[Ka'i NeSmith · Rating 1 out of 5]

It’s absolutely astounding to see self-identifying “defenders of free speech” write entire books about why readers are too stupid to choose what they read.

He seems to think the drop in Rowling’s sales has nothing to do with her actions bullying her own fanbase, or that Dav Pilkey was bullied by leftists into retracting his racist depictions, as if the man was not capable of learning and growing from his mistakes. To say nothing of retractions made autonomously by, for instance, the Seuss estate.

My takeaway is that Szetala isn’t just not as progressive as he makes himself out to be—he’s straight up lying. This guy is obviously an insane right winger posing as a lefty publishing insider. No one’s ever heard of him except for fringe conspiracy podcasters.

MIT Press has acquired quite a reputation for this kind of fakery in the last ten years. Note their prominent role in falsely marketing Large Language Models as “Artificial Intelligence.”

In fact, if you are trying to avoid generated content, you should probably avoid MIT Press altogether, by which i dont mean censor them but rather BUY USED COPIES, CRITIQUE THEM FIERCELY AND PUBLICLY, and DEMAND CHANGE. These are the actual mechanisms that whinyboy Szetala seems to equate with defecating on the first amendment.

[Jeremy Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

English professor and writer Adam Szetela has produced a substantial first book with "That Book is Dangerous!", an exploration of the state of publishing today. His subtitle, "How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing" provides an effective synopsis.

Some might conclude from this that Szetela will be taking conservatives to task, given the history of conservative book burnings and moral panics - Szetela explores the panic around comic books in the 1950s extensively here - but this is primarily a critique of censorship from the left. Szetela appears to be a progressive in comments he makes, along with his status as an academic who has written for numerous progressive publications, which makes his taking on fellow progressives that much more impressive.

It is perhaps unsurprising that he thanks the "Nonsite crew" including Walter Benn Michaels, Toure Reed and Adolph Reed Jr., who I have reviewed here previously and who Szetela cites frequently, as this is a leftist publication that prioritizes class over identity in their analysis, and as such are frequent critics of progressive identity politics.

Szetela begins with an analysis of the state of YA publication and traditional progressive issues of representation, a notion that he values. He moves into a look at some of the consequences of progressive thought in publication, leading to an industry that now requires 'sensitivity' readers to identify potentially harmful stereotypes in books due for publication, and which affixes an 'own voices' label on books where the identity of the author and the protagonists align.

This 'essentialist' reading ironically implies that race is more fixed and totalizing than progressives used to argue and comes closer to a right-wing take on race.

He is obviously disturbed by sensitivity readers who insist that they represent an entire demographic, despite the fact that many of these readers are high status and clearly 'privileged' in many material ways, arguing that they merely offer "a more layered version of essentialism" (p. 22).

I confess to not being a reader of much YA. Even when I taught high school English, I seldom did more than skim through the YA on my shelves, one of which was "The Hate U Give", about a young black teen whose world crumbles when she witnesses a friend killed by police. It was popular with my students and progressive educators everywhere, but Szetela trashes is for "racist stereotypes about black Americans while delivering sermon-like indictments of America's racism" (p. 29).

What struck me was that I had mostly read this book, and yet I missed this essentializing. I, too, was caught up in these progressive thought bubbles.

This was the moment in "Dangerous" when I perceived that Szetela was clearly walking his own path, rather than aligning with a political tribe. He identifies more clearly with readers of all stripes and, to a lesser extent, free-speech activists.

Szetela has conducted a variety of interviews for "Dangerous!", and while some are quoted in too much length, we get a real sense of inevitability about the need for caution in terms of identity, with even black and POC sources expressing their discomfort for the ever-more-stringent demands to respect identity.

Szetela notes how these pressures are even driving shifts in the style of writing, with authors eschewing omniscient third person narrators so as to avoid charges of appropriation. In moments like these, I wish he had included academic sources to supplement his anecdotal evidence.

But that is a minor quibble, as he has mustered an impressive array of sources, many quite current. This book was published in 2025 and provides powerful evidence that 'woke' is not dead, a narrative which has gained real traction recently.

Throughout the rest of his first chapter "The Ideas of the Sensitivity Era" he adds examples of sensitive overreach and downright bullying, many of which are darkly ironic. (Sensitivity readers urging violence on abuse-survivor JK Rowling?) He explores how 'presentism' makes it difficult to appreciate classics, even those within the 20th century.

Publishers rejecting books, librarians and teachers reshelving or removing them, several YA novels that had their releases cancelled, in some cases, by readers who had not read them. While none of this is classic censorship (a fact that allows the sensitives to pretend there is no censorship), Szetela is convincing that the range of books available is narrowed as a result.

I felt like I had walked similar paths to Szetela, reading this, given that he cites many of the academics that have most influenced me recently, the aforementioned Nonsite crew, John McWhorter, and the team of social psychologist Jonathan Haidt and lawyer Greg Lukianoff, who compellingly argue that trigger warnings and the like are a form of 'coddling', with severe psychological consequences for young people.

He cites esteemed writers like Toni Morrison and Chimamanda Ngoze Adichie who argue for keeping canonical greats like Twain or Shakespeare, and makes frequent references to the dystopias of Huxley, Bradbury and Orwell, now seemingly more prescient than ever. He talks about a recent trend towards 'bowdlerization', rewriting the classics to remove offensive content, sometimes without acknowledgement. All this leads him to conclude that this trend "looks a lot like a moral panic" (p. 64).

Chapter 2 is about the behaviour of the sensitives, and how it is worsened by social media pile-ons and other realities of the technology. He argues the idea that "silence equals violence" is used to justify the increasingly hysterical and, at times, abusive responses to those that fail to reproduce the correct ideology, even if they themselves are members of a marginalized group, and castigates the lack of research and data presented by the sensitives, who seem to simply assume they are correct.

He discusses research he conducted that showed students could be prompted to conclude that the poem "A Supermarket in California" was homophobic, despite the author being noted not-a -homophobe Alan Ginsberg.

Chapter 3 looks at the political economy of the "sensitivity era" and this is where Szetela gets into depth on class issues, sharing surprising evidence of how little poverty is discussed in children's literature or teacher training programs while other 'marginalized' demographic categories are repeatedly explored.

He notes that 'the big five' publishing houses are happy to simultaneously crush union drives and bang the diversity drum, a stance that firmly aligns him with the work or Benn Michaels and Reed Jr. He quotes poet Amiri Baraka: "black faces in high places, but the same rats and roaches, the same slums and garbage" (p. 138).

Szetela is most compelling as a progressive lover of literature, and of educating that love into the young, and he worries about the harm being done to our students, denied some of the classics of human achievement, and to leftist political projects, with anti-woke measures from Trump being an issue that attracts swing voters and even lapsed progressives.

Ultimately, this book is a welcome addition to discussions of the moral malaise of our time, offering real insights into the state of publishing and reading today. As Szetela notes, big brother is not even needed when so many little brothers exist, voluntarily serving the same function.

While there are repetitive moments, and perhaps tighter editing would have helped, this is highly accessible, at times even entertaining, for a book released by academic publisher MIT press. At under 200 pages, plus an extensive set of footnotes and an index, I read this in two sittings.

Recommended for all fans of 'dangerous' books.

[Edward]

The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book here: https://archive.is/YHSIp

Barney Rosset risked violence and insolvency so that his Grove Press could print unexpurgated American editions of such forbidden works as “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” in 1959 and “Tropic of Cancer” in 1961. To publish “Ulysses” in 1934 without risking prosecution, Random House first had to orchestrate a court case to prove the book innocent of obscenity.

Today’s publishers aren’t much constrained by obscenity laws. Instead, the pressure comes from staff members and social-media mobs wielding their “militant fragility,” in the words of Adam Szetela, to remake our book culture into an anodyne enterprise that puts “safety” first. Mr. Szetela lays bare this remarkable phenomenon in “That Book Is Dangerous! How Moral Panic, Social Media, and the
Culture Wars Are Remaking Publishing.”

The result is a devastating work of scholarship that commits the ultimate transgression of failing to include the trigger warnings so cherished by the targets of the author’s indictment. Readers might well feel they deserve a warning too, for sane lovers of literature who read this book are likely to experience fury and even despair by the time they finish.

The industry transformation the author chronicles here—much of it premised on the need to avoid feeling unsafe and the trauma attendant to not being a straight, white man—will be familiar to anyone who has followed the online purity crusades of the past few years. But even jaded readers will be startled by the scope of the self-organizing tyranny besetting the book world. Hardly anyone has the temerity to stand up to it.

Courage, in the author’s account, is scarce in a literary culture circumscribed by sanctimonious bullies and in thrall to identitarian grievance mongers. Again and again his terrified sources, after bemoaning the Orwellian climate of the book business, beg him for reassurance that they will not be named in print.

Mr. Szetela describes vicious (and semiliterate) pile-ons in response to imaginary transgressions, abject apologies akin to hostage statements and gleeful attacks on the apology until the victim has been shunned by publishers, editors and agents—and branded with a seemingly indelible digital scarlet letter. “Years later,” the author explains, “the first page of Google will continue to advertise their polluted moral status to the world.”

The problem seems to begin on campus. The author notes that when he searched the Modern Language Association job list one day in 2022, 72 out of 74 positions in North America sought “applicants who specialize in race, ethnicity, sexuality, disability, indigeneity, and other identities.” The desired identities are often part of the job: “Assistant Professor of Latina/o/x Literatures and Cultures” or
“Assistant Professor of Race, Diaspora, and Indigeneity.”

The master-of-fine-arts programs that produce so many of today’s writers are part of this revolutionary higher-education landscape. Students in writing workshops are loath to honestly criticize each other’s work, especially if the writer belongs to a sacrosanct group. Professors are subject to obsessive student surveillance and called out for deviations from approved terminology. As one graduate student tells Mr. Szetela, there are “social points awarded for each identification of something problematic.”

Graduates who embark upon a literary life will find the book industry policed by an army of sensitivity readers, members of identity groups paid to make sure their group isn’t misrepresented. As the author says of one such reader, “his job is to make literature inoffensive.” But this pursuit of authenticity can end up reinforcing stereotypes.

The business of sensitivity readers is booming even as recreational reading wanes. Mr. Szetela notes that some agents demand that authors hire them before the agency tries to sell the manuscript. For writers, hiring such readers is a badge of good “literary citizenship” and a chance to flaunt their virtue as well as their success by boasting of how many they can afford. “As a straight white male who’s spent the past four years writing a queer love story,” says one preening author, “I’ve used nearly a dozen sensitivity readers so far, and I will no doubt use several more once my agent and I go on submission.”

Obscure literary journals that might once have published new and transgressive writing now prioritize work that “avoids the risk of harm,” in the words of Hunger Mountain Review, which has vowed to combat “the cis-heteronormative white-supremacist ableist patriarchy.” Denver Quarterly evidently bars material that lays bare social evils, since “we do not tolerate submissions that contain hate speech, bigotry, discrimination, or racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or ableist language or violence of any kind.”

Mr. Szetela also reports that, starting with children’s books but now more widely, publishers have begun including “morality clauses” in contracts with authors, clauses so vague that some of them could permit cancellation for nearly any behavior anyone finds objectionable. The Authors Guild, likening this trend to the McCarthyism that destroyed the careers of writers, filmmakers and others in the 1950s, asserted that “morals clauses chill free speech.”

Mr. Szetela is a courageous and capable chronicler of the publishing industry’s nervous breakdown, highlighting the new intolerance that has replaced the old and using a class-based critique to expose the contradictions and hypocrisy of “woke” publishing. But he fails to situate publishing in the context of the larger network of liberal cultural institutions that in recent years have congealed into a single, neurotic political enterprise obsessed with gender, race and, lately, the vilification of Israel.

The spread of this new orthodoxy shouldn’t be surprising, for as the author notes, “insatiability is a defining feature of moral crusades. As crusaders achieve victories, they expand the scope of their crusade.”

[N Rizkalla · Rating 5 out of 5]

THAT book is GREAT!

It is a brilliant exposé of the destruction of free speech and innovation by the WOKE madness.

The author, a self-described progressive, methodically analyses how WOKE crusaders are savagely censoring the writing and publishing of books for children and young adults (YA).

Over the altar of political correctness, books are prohibited, authors cancelled, and careers destroyed. Children and YA are deprived of reading except what is filtered through troves of “sensitivity reviewers” and censors who dictate their myopic and distorted view of the world (and make a lot of money out of it, of course). This is a danger that if not curtailed could creep into adult literature as well!

This is a valuable addition to the growing literature- from right and left- which exposes the idiocies of the dark WOKE culture.

[Samantha · Rating 3 out of 5]

There does seem to be quite a bit of groupthink right now in publishing, an industry largely populated by educated and super liberal white women acting partly with good intent, and - if this book is to be believed - partly in terror of social media users. Szetela has a definite "wokeness has gone too far" viewpoint, and I think he set out to write this book so he could express it. He gets big props for some of the interviews he secured though, and for identifying something that's clearly a problem. The publishing world has become less experimental and more risk averse, and readers are dropping off as a result.

[Greg Talbot · Rating 2 out of 5]

One of the remarkable challenges of the disinformation age is the weaponization of speech and fragmentation of a shared reality. As Jonathan Haidt lays out in his phenomenal essay about our modern Babel, "social media deputizes everyone to administer justice with no due process". It has exacerbated some of the themes that Adam Szetala lays out here such as presentism and safetyism. Publishers and readers have pushed back on writer's creative experiences if they do not align to a paritcular identity or pre-conceived nottion of what the story should be. There are always some individuals who push their judgements of acceptability back on the creator, and threaten to cancel or punish. It eschews the championed free speech idea - free speech protects the speech we don't want to hear.

Szetela provides some compelling examples of political-correctedness gone awry. One of the most compelling is the story of Amélie Wen Zhao's "Blood Heir". The author was targeted with a viral campaign and pushed into having rewrites with sensitivity readers. All of this because her fantasical novel had pushed some people's buttons. She had written in pieces that some readers felt she didn't have the experience to write on. Some accused her of supporting human tracking (p.69). Some accused her of color-blind racism, due to the ambiguity of evil characters. Some objected to it being harmful for readers. Zhao is not alone, we've seen many writers and performers punished by audiences through bans, cancellations and student protests. It's an example that shows the narrowing of creativity and criticism - a limitation of the author and reader to exchange in a meaningful way.

One of the challenges of "That Book is Dangerous!" the examples are uniformly about progressive overreach. Almost every example I came across is about a traditionally liberal voice being "cancelled" by a more progressive one. Cancelling "Toni Morrison" becomes a feminist action. Cancelling Shakespeare becomes an anti-western action. Cancelling Mark Twain, or any writer before 1950 becomes an anti-racist action. Those are valid examples, but it seems to be less than half the story in our current poltiical climate. In the midst of his zeal, he neglects to show the state level censorship of free speech. Consider Trump's 2nd administration, and the fragility to free speech. We've seen silencing of Palestinian student groups. Extortion efforts against college campuses, museusms, and civic institutions. Proclaimations that free speech does not exist for burning flags . That of course is in opposition to the long-standing Supreme Court decisions (Texas vs Jonhson). Comedians must be nice or will be cancelled. The fealty is not only a betrayal of conservative values - it's an admission that free speech is less acceptable from the political class.

Long chapters without tonal shifts for humor or narrative, leans the writing into jeremiads. Conservatives like Ben Shapiro and Charles Murray at least have good wit and writing chops to engage the reader. The screed of outrage grows a bit dull when the growth of those ideas do not lead to a construstive approach. For all the snide humor at liberal pieties, Szetala spends little consideirng the metrics he would use to fairly criticize a new novel.

Despite giving examples of how tweets and social media have been the source of moral panics, Szetela never really explores how social media platforms optimize for engagement. I think most people would agree that social media has a prominent role in reactionary politics. Szetela is quick to target young progressives for illiberal reactionary politics, but it seems short-sighted when one considers how firms have monetized the attention economy This book may be about publishing houses - but the outrage is downstream from large tech firms platforms.

Even well meaning ing communities can limit artists and artifacts from finding an audience. Censorship is often a reminder of the power of a work ("Ulysses", "Hucklberry Finn", "Lolita", "Fight Club"), and our limited trust of young people to make up their own minds. An artist revered today, can be reveiled tomorrow. Just look at J.K. Rowling's story. First she was condemned by Christian fundamentalists for the magical worlds she created for children. Now she is a target by liberal commmentators who villify her for her politics on transgender issues. Nevertheless the art remains. Maybe the best solution is to take back the word "problematic" as badge of pride. Why bother feeding the trolls when you can just work on your creations. Ultimately we judge a book by its cover at our own peril - it not only limits the book's potential, but limits our ability to be challenged. Our growth, in ourselves and with others, depends on free expression for all.

[Paul Sand · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another successful suggestion I made to the Portsmouth (NH) Public Library, probably as a result of me reading this good review in the WSJ back in January. (WSJ gifted link)

The book describes the toxic combination of moral panic, cowardice, wokeness, and the social media environment, and how that affects the publishing industry. The author, Adam Szetela, focuses specifically on "young adult" (YA) books, and how would-be authors daring to write characters outside their pigeonholes of race, gender, sexual preference, etc. must tread extremely carefully to avoid a shitstorm of criticism about "authenticity" or "insensitivity" or "stereotyping" or "white saviorhood" or … well, you get the idea. Baseless accusations of racism, sexism, etc. are easy to make and spread through the social media grapevine. Bullying can be intense, and also potty-mouthed.

This has engendered the new profession of "sensitivity readers", people who are thought to represent their racial/sexual/ethnic/etc. pigeonhole, hired (expensively) by authors and publishers to check for unacceptable sins. They often find something, because how else can they justify their lofty fees?

Szetela cites the very pertinent "great untruths" as listed in The Coddling of the American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt: "What doesn't kill you makes you weaker"; "Always trust your feelings"; and "Life is a battle between good people and evil people." It seems that those untruths are (nevertheless) large and in charge in great swaths of the publishing industry. (Fortunately, authors like Szetela, Lukianoff, and Haidt manage to get books published anyway.)

Szetela also notes the self-censorship that extends outside the YA sphere. The examples of removing Ian Fleming's non-PC descriptions in his James Bond novels, and the removal of some Dr. Seuss titles for ethnic stereotyping are mentioned.

Szetela is unsparing in his criticism of all this. (If you would like a free taste, he has a few posts up at Quillette.) He is kind of a lefty himself, and their are little nods to that throughout the book. He seems sympathetic to affirmative-action-like efforts to increase the "representation" of "diverse" authors of books and their characters. (Whereas a troglodyte like me just wants good books, without the nose-counting.) He does make an interesting point that all this moral panic ignores the thorny topic of class and the workings of the free market system. For example, the YA classic The Hate U Give ends with its family moving to a richer neighborhood by dint of diligent self-help bootstrapping; Szelta deems this "economically vacuous". He would prefer: "economic mobility" be portrayed as a "shared project that occurs through strikes, sit-ins, and political legislation."

Still, it's good to see this kind of broad and honest criticism come from inside the left-wing tent.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.7 stars. Acknowledges that he's ignoring right-wing censorship, which is of course a pretty huge omission these days especially, to focus in depth on basically progressive cancel culture in the world of books, with special emphasis on children's and YA literature. Loathes the use of "sensitivity readers" especially, making and remaking (and remaking -- really, he brings it up afresh in the last chapter as though he hadn't been talking about it extensively all the way along) the points that....

--good literature can be disturbing and isn't meant to be didactic and politically wholesome at all times
--fiction authors are not necessarily advocating for every action or statement by each of their characters
--demographically defined groups are heterogeneous, so one gay (or Black, or female, or.....) sensitivity reader cannot legitimately serve as spokesperson to tell you how the book will land with all.

The repetition was IMO main drawback stylistically (if I had heard one more time about the person who stated that only gay people should be able to write about gay characters I might have screamed), as I otherwise found his conversational/snarky style engaging. Other pluses.....

--Not a completely novel observation at this point, but he does effectively make the case that social media pile-on's can be mindless and destructive

--reports an interesting, apparently as yet unpublished, experiment (p. 102) seeming to show that it was pretty easy, using a manipulation analogous to a Twitter callout about the harmfulness of a particular poem, to influence people to see it as antisemitic, racist, or homophobic

--effectively makes case for their being too little attention to class/economic issues in discussions of representation and inclusion in the publishing world.

His overall thesis that it's better to let ideas/stories see the light of day even if they make some uncomfortable or strike people as "problematic" [spoiler alert: authors hates widespread use of this term] has a long and honorable history and was well-put by John Stuart Mill among others, but it's useful to drill down on it in a particular arena such as literature publishing.

[James · Rating 5 out of 5]

Goodreads reviews don't fare well in this book so it is with a little trepidition that I write this. Since I found that I was in the top 5% of Goodreads reviewers in 2025 the author probably has more than a point.

If you read my reviews thank you!

The author belongs to the progressive movement and is sympathetic to the aims but not the methods of those he criticises.

The theme of the book is that sensitivity readers, own voice and other categories of preferred authors are limiting the scope of literature being published thus inhibiting the public discourse.

Szetela notes that sensitvity readers need no particular training, have no professional body to accredit competence and just need to share a characteristic with a fictional person. It is difficult to know whether such readers are just speaking for themselves or they do, in fact, represent the thoughts of the majority of Asian, Black, Disabled, Gay or other communities for which they profess to speak. Yet their opinion can make or break a book.

He talks of many of those most vocal on these matters forming circular firing squads and pursuing purity cults, moving from one heretic to the next. It reminded me of the old joke about a congregation that had excommunicated members until two were left and the pastor said, 'Well Brother Jones we have purged the heretics until only you and I are left. Frankly, I have my doubts about you'.

His fear is the stranglehold of the 'Woke' in publishing is leading to a situation that "At its core, the moral crusade over literature believes that children, teenagers, and even adults should be deprived of the right to choose their own books." (p 164)

He believes that in the end it will prove self-defeating. Szetela writes on p 196, "In fact, if the movement for more diverse and sensitive books is to have any future at all, it will have to stop alienating the very people who want to write and read these books."

I make no pretence to be a professional book reviewer but I believe this to be an important book that any one who wishes to be informed, about what is happening in publishing and is/or concerned about the right of being able to read different ideas to enable them to make up their own minds about issues, should read. I try to read books I believe are important which is why I read this particular one.

I think we need to take a lead from C. S. Lewis and read books from other historical periods so we are able to identify the cultural presuppositions of our own age.

[Liz · Rating 5 out of 5]

While at times somewhat repetitive and overly verbose, this book is what many liberals (especially book loving liberals, like myself) need to read.

When I first got my hands on this book from a free blind book exchange I was excited by the topic of book censorship but quickly began to wonder if I had picked up a “wrong” book when it began to- in my interpretation at the time- question diversity in books. This was not the case, I quickly found out as I kept reading and that knee jerk reaction I had experienced was the result of the very topic the book was about. The more I read the more I would have similar knee jerk reactions that I would notice from within myself. It was an enlightening experience because Adam Szetela makes some very good points.

In this age where diversity in literature is so important it is equally important that “own voices” authors are able to share stories with what is indeed their OWN VOICE without being subject to morality policing or else arbitrary standards set by unqualified “others” on what it really means to be an identity. Additionally, the cannibalization of the left in the name of moral justice and personal comfort does indeed have a self-harm effect.

I do wonder at times if the state of things is indeed as cataclysmic as some of the comparisons Szetela makes, but it cannot be said his point lacks clarity.

My critique would be that the book is hard to get through. I had to read it bit by bit taking breaks from time to time to read something else and the book often references or seemingly repeats from previous sections that can be hard to follow or give you a sense of deja vu. Despite this, I find it very much worth the read and wish that those who truly need this book find a copy of it sitting on their desk. May they internalize it’s lessons instead of starting a flame war against the author on Twitter.

[Elkaza · Rating 5 out of 5]

I loved this book. Explained alot to me about the culture wars and literature. Since, I am having trouble finding anything modern to read. Its all woke crap!!! Hence, why I usually head to the classics for things to read, these days.

Also, what's in this book, isn't just happening to the literature world, rather also in movies, education. Its everywhere, people to whom have become to sensitivity, get defended over everything. Hence, want to control things. Also, the issue of D.E.I is mentioned in this book, which is about hiring people more for there characteristics, than are they skilled for it. Hence, this is why we are getting a lower and poor standards for literacy that is now being punished.

So, many issues, in which is quite a small book, nearly 300 pages long. So, not a long read, but still full of so much information, you will want to take notes like I did.

A must read, for anyone wanting to know, what's causing the culture wars, the terrible effects of the culture wars, and what we can do about it. Hence, the reason for the increase of independent and self publishing. Since, if your a white - straight - male, don't bother seeking out getting your book published in one of the big publishing companies, go another route.

[Patrik Sampler · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few quick words upon just reading This Book Is Dangerous! It's brave, detailed, and often funny. I'd say it's necessary reading for anyone in the book industry, broadly speaking. It's depressing to read the extent to which the rot now extends through USAmerican books, Anglosphere books, and even beyond. Thanks to Adam Szetela for acknowledging, even if in passing, even if not by that name, US cultural imperialism. At least the USA has a critical mass of people, allowing more diversity of ideas in books, even if not in works of fiction promoted in the mainstream. In my native Canada, even a small number of influencers can put a near totalizing chill on the publishing industry. There is a very anti-literary monomania, here, for circumscribed notions of identity to the exclusion of all other things fiction can be about and moreover do. It has made writing stale, simplistic, and boring. It's heartening to read someone punching back.

[Christine O’Neal · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a book about information — but really, it’s about control over interpretation.

The most interesting throughline isn’t censorship in the dramatic sense. It’s the subtler dynamic of who gets to define what is legitimate knowledge and who gets classified as destabilizing for asking the wrong question.

The title is ironic in a precise way. Books become “dangerous” when they introduce alternative feedback loops into closed systems. The danger isn’t chaos. It’s destabilization of a narrative monopoly.

What I appreciated is that the book doesn’t romanticize dissent. It shows how institutions, once optimized around a dominant frame, interpret deviation as threat — not because deviation is inherently harmful, but because it increases variance.

In that sense, “dangerous” really means “variance-inducing.”

If you’re interested in how epistemic authority is constructed — and how it hardens — this is a useful lens.

[Pedro Friedmann · Rating 5 out of 5]

eu meio que tinha e ao mesmo tempo não tinha muita familiaridade com esse assunto - já entendia e tinha uma boa familiaridade com dinâmicas de cancelamento (do meio progressista) nas redes sociais no geral - principalmente no mundo dos filmes e do audiovisual como um todo, todavia, todo esse universo da 'ya' (literatura infantojuvenil) ainda me era um pouco distante. a despeito disso, eu achei o livro simplesmente espetacular na sua forma de expor o tema de forma tão envolvente e densa a partir de um referencial teórico multidisciplinar (óbvio que, como estudante de pscicologia, adorava especialmente quando esta era traziada para o debate). ademais, a escrita por vezes sarcástica e afiada do autor é muito boa, não imaginava que eu ia literalmente rir lendo um livro como esse. enfim, o timing pode não ser o mais perfeito e oportuno de todos, mas ainda acredito que o que é dito aqui é de suma importância para o nosso momento atual, apesar do tempinho transcorrido desde muitos dos acontecimentos descritos no livro até o momento atual ter trazido consigo algumas mundanças de cenário (e o próprio autor reconhece isso). de qualquer forma, ótimo terminar o ano com uma leitura 5 estrelas.

[Carolyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Szetela uncovers the successful efforts of the political left to undermine children's and YA literature. We often hear about the actions of the political right to remove books from school and public libraries, but that pales when compared to how the left has been infiltrating the entire publishing industry, resulting in "appropriate" publications. He sends us back to George Orwell's 1984. This book is a must read. And it wouldn't hurt to reread Orwell, too.

[Angel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Quick impressions: In the end, I would consider this book to be optional for libraries. It does provide a counterbalance to the usual banned and challenged books narrative.

(Full review on my blog soon.)

[Brooke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow, this was excellent. So timely. So interesting and engaging. So important. Pretty jaw-dropping and thought-provoking. As well as witty and well-written. Anyone who loves literature/stories/books and is interested in culture/politics should read this book. Highly recommend it.

[Gina · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5

[Diana]

I didn't have enough time to read before needing to return this to the library

[linds · Rating 3 out of 5]

While it's a couple years too late, I did find That Book Is Dangerous to be an enlightening analysis of the sensitivity reader industrial complex and the caustic panopticon driving it. I particularly appreciated the exploration of how these dynamics reinforce and encourage racism while claiming to fight it. The emphasis on profit motives is also well-done. It could have done with less relitigating of twitter spats.