If you give someone a box and say whatever happens do not look inside of it. Most people would take a peek. That is what occurred in Fahrenheit 451. My theory is to never give the person the box in the first place. My people and I would make an extensive list of books and manuscripts that we deem unfit for our kingdom and instead of ransacking door to door for those books which causes hysteria we would call in a recall for those books. When a pharmaceutical company puts out an urgent statement saying that recently a shipment of their pill capsules was given the wrong dosage and that all who take the pill will die or become very sick. Nobody is going to take another one after hearing that. So you use the same method with the unwanted books. My kingdom would put out an urgent …show more content…
If the people know that they’re being censored then they will lose trust with you and will act out against you. So in closing I believe that any ruler that actually wants to rule for a while should practice book censorship or banning, but in a way that is less upfront and a more behind closed doors. If most of the population did find out most would think of me badly; although some might sympathise with me. So I guess in view would be a man cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. Made villain by the books he had vanquished and victim from what the very books entailed within. When word would spread of my deeds I would be incriminated as the enemy the end result would be a violent, volcanic explosion of hatred and venomous vendettas toward the now vulnerable ruler being me. Verbal vexes and vicious acts of defiance would bring a swift ending to my rule leaving them victorious, thus leaving my throne vacated for various other leaders to take over. It is because of this reason exactly that censorship should be practiced but