Nihilism, censorship and moral intent in literature

Ahhh, there’s a quick topic for you. Let’s start with nihilism and censorship. Say I write a book entitled Let’s Slay Everyone Who Ain’t Quaker or Tropic of Cancer. Let’s also say the narrators in one or both works advocate murder, psychopathic sexual behavior, narcissism carried to the plus-nth degree and the overuse of adjectives. Should they be read or censored? Well, discounting children (and they’re often on sale anyway), reading material for adults that doesn’t contain instructions on how to create anthrax or dub Barry Manilow should never be censored. Censorship basically says “You are too dumb to reason through this; therefore, we’ll prevent you from being poisoned by this icky lit.” Whether it comes from the right or the left, it’s a repressive and insulting practice. What about sexism? What about it? Do we consider women too stupid to reason through fiction? If so, then you’re sexist. What about men? Are they too dumb? If you think so, you might be mainstream academic, but you’re a misandronist. I think some slow readers get confused by the difference between the narrator’s voice and the author’s moral intent. The author might not have any moral intent beyond not having any; or the author might be using sarcasm, irony or boorish language to nudge a point. Think of Huckleberry Finn, one of the most anti-slavery novels ever written being accused of racism. Even better, the author’s moral intent might get away from them—like in Paradise Lost or as William Blake called it, Devil Without a Cause. Milton thought—ha ha—he was on the side of the angels, but he penned a sympathetic demon who went on to star in numerous teen flicks and bad French text.