“…In the language of the chief censor Merwe Scholtz, "Die aksie (die patetiese, triestige porsie van die verhaal wat die naam aksie verdien) word so toegespin onder die mymerende, soms filosoferende herinneringslewe, dat die boek geen vuis het nie" (The action [the pathetic, sad portion of the story that warrants being called action] is so bound up with the speculative, philosophizing life of memory, that the book has no punch) (my translation). 36 Both the original banning and the later unbanning had much the same basis insofar as they both referred to the work's aesthetic qualities. These completely opposed judgments resulted from attempts to gauge what the text's effects might be on the likely reader (by this stage, the criterion of the so-called "reasonable reader" was being used to make decisions).…”