The sound of drums from the Kettle Moraine.
That interview is rediculous. The gay themes have little to do with the "pornographic" nature of his book. Why are gay-advocates always in such a hurry to jump on the "you dont accept it because theres homosexual themes" bandwagon? I guess no one has the mention the lewd content in Geography Club that is irrelevent of the sexual orientation of its characters.
Um, it's the homophobic phalangists who seem to equate saying anything about homosexuality with pornography... that's the ground of the entire complaint.
Ah, my bad.I thought the ground of the entire complaint, particularly for this book, was that it was a book sugested to be read by minors, yet it contained large amounts of drug references and sexual behaviors which included a broad range from oral sex all the way to anal sex.Maybe we would be a more productive generation if Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys were perfecting their mississipi crab-dangle between bong tokes...
To the first Anon,These books being about 'gay themes' is a major reason why they are being labeled as porn. Check Ginny's earlier blog entries about the library issue. Her original complaint with the library was to BAN the whole 'over the rainbow' YA booklist. If you don't believe me or Ginny's damning blog entries aren't enough, contact the WB library and ask about the original complaint.She has of course, changed her tune. Books have been added that have heterosexual sexual themes, and Ginny claims that she's sorry she ever made it a GLBT issue. But those darn gays, they're just so paranoid. Somehow they don't believe the sincerity of a woman who thinks that they are going to hell for being what they are. They are so totally unjustified in their suspicions. Its not like any of the excerpts she's offended by are just two boys kissing or anything...oops. Wait. I found this pornographic excerpt linked to on her site.p. 36-37 - “I opened the door, and I saw Patrick kissing Brad. It was a stolen type of kissing…Patrick came downstairs. I guess Brad had left. And Patrick smiled. And Bob started to make fun of him having a crush on the quarterback. And Patrick smiled more. I don’t think I ever saw Patrick smile so much.”Oh God, my virgin eyes/keyboard/mind. I'm so offended, to think countless gays are making this sort pornography right now, and probably out in public too.
This is the guy who posted as the first (first and third posts) Anon.Ginny has already poisoned her own well, and it will be hard for her to say anything in the forseeable future that anyone in this community should take seriously.Thats unfortunate.That doesnt make her newer (newest? Its hard for me to keep track with her...) complaint warrantless. It's only unfortunate that she has to have become this spokeswoman for this particular movement in this community. And that isnt because I neccessarily disagree with her view, only the way she handled it.To the second Anon that posted the quote from page 36-37, though your quote supports your argument against Ginny and her specific initial agenda, it does not discount the other, more graphic quotes that are contained in that book.
Hey Anon 1 this is Anon2, call me Ann because all this Anonymous stuff is getting confusing.You might be right, as I have yet to read the book in its entirety. The excerpts I read (that were quoted by Ginny's movement as being pornographic) certainly didn't seem pornographic to me. If what they quoted was lewd, then they are easily offended and should not be a litmus test for the community. Truly, Pornography is in the eye of the beholder, that's why there isn't really a white and black legal definition for it.But we're getting off topic here. Ginny and her group ORIGINALLY attacked the book because it had homosexual themes. That issue is what brought it to their attention. They are still fighting the book, but on different grounds. The author being interviewed is right when he states that Ginny and her group are disguising their true anti-gay agenda by attacking the book for its mild sexual content. To say that "The gay themes have little to do with the "pornographic" nature of his book." is inaccurate as it discounts the history and nature of her original and covertly ongoing agenda. This issue was born from her bigotry. And while being a bigot doesn't mean she can't have a point, or even a good point, it does mean that everything she says should be closely scrutinized (like a KKK member on an affirmative action committee). And really, her old complaint and her new complaint share the same spirit, the only difference is that the new one has been polished up enough to not be so blatantly unconstitutional. In closing, because this post is so disorganized, I will shamelessly go off on another tangent. Why do you think there is a "'you dont accept it because theres homosexual themes' bandwagon?" I haven't heard of this so called wagon before, but hot diggity, where do I get on? Sincerely,Ann
Ginny has canged her tune is an understatement. I have gone back to her tv interviews to show people her comments blantantly showing her complaint stemmed from the aspect of homosexuality. It is clear. It's also see to see how her complaint morphed as other groups stepped up to advise. The breakdown can be found here. justmythoughts-kristina.blogspot.com Sorry Mark for the link. It does pertain to the issue at hand her. Takes is all the way back to the beginning to present in her own words. I think people have forgotten what she has said early on.Respectfully,Kristina
Hey Kristina, It's a great time line and darned useful now that they're trying to cover their tracks.
I think Anonymous #1 is mixing up his books. The Geography Club has no explicit content at all (maybe you are referring to Perks of Being a Wallflower?). The most that really happens in that book is kissing. And that very fact highlights that Ginny targed that book only because of the homosexual themes.
Post a Comment