Good point.
I wasn't thinking in that particular aspect of it.

But it is a bit discouraging to writer who can not know how people will ultimately react his book.

Or slightly different take a nation merely by being "wildly" successful could result a misunderstanding which could lead to a damaging affect by those attempting to imitate it [or fight against what it mistakenly percieved threat]. Or "wildly" unsuccessful.

Perhaps, the main aspect is the lack of dialogue upon a particular topic and perhaps a general inaccessiblity to the subject being "talked about"- in other words it's not there is dialogue but there is a limit to the dialogue. And instead of the dialogue itself one might look at what causing the lack of dialogue- a main the aspect factors contributing to this might a general fear and hate. Simply any change does this to some extent. Any fear can breed further fear and which I believe could even "echo" upon "apparently" distant unrelated group of people.

In a word, I think fear and hate mongering is the principle aspect, and perhaps this why Darwin's work has low rating and such hateful pieces as The Communist Manifesto are rated higher.
And more important in terms of causing fear and hatred, would the endless wars of the bloody of Europeans of which these books were in context. These books didn't cause wars as much as they were components which feverishly fueled the madness.