Anyone who has read this blog for any amount of time knows how I feel about racism. It is the most primitive, irrational, repugnant version of collectivist pseudo-thought that I can possibly imagine. It allows pathetic, brainless mediocrities to glom onto one another and find a delusion of strength in numbers. (Thanks, Internet!) They have no ability to achieve individually, so they gather in groups to castigate and victimize others based on the one thing their enemies cannot control – their race. They have no other recourse. They put others down based on skin color, because they don’t have enough intellect and rational thought to constructively critique them in any other way.
A few months ago a halfwit named K. Tempest Bradford issued a reading challenge to her frothing pack of acolytes: stop reading works by straight, white, cis males for one year. Anyone with an IQ of room temperature or higher can see the racist principles pervasive in such a challenge. Don’t read works based on their content. Don’t read them for plot, characterization, or quality of writing. Shun writers based on the melanin content in their skin and their sexual identity – but only the identity that this puffed up SJW wacko approves of. Because anything else is WRONGTHOUGHT.
Larry Correia did a hilarious fisk of Tempest’s nuttery in February, so please do go read it. It’s a joy to behold.
But if you think the SJW cranks learned something from the ridicule, you’d be wrong.
Recently, a young adult author named Meg Rosoff had the unmitigated temerity to claim that good literature should expand your mind, that it doesn’t have to be a “mirror” for whatever Special Snowflakitude you claim, but rather expand your horizons and teach you about the world.
For this unspeakable WRONGTHINK, the SJW loons have begun to congeal into one, large, racist barrage of fruitcakery, condemning Ms. Rosoff for her views, which are – according to their demented doctrine – are wrong because of her WRONGCOLOR!
The most obvious is a screeching screed at Bibliodaze entitled, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Meg Rosoff: a Dissection.” Again I call on those with above room temperature IQ to pay close attention to the title of this article. The shrill, squealing siren call to shun Ms. Rosoff also includes the usual catchwords, such as “privilege,” “safe space,” and “diversity,” as well as the usual accusation of “bigotry,” which really is the ad hominem fallback of any empty-headed, sniveling, perpetually-offended halfwit, who doesn’t have the intellectual fortitude to hold its own in a disagreement.
In the process, this quivering-lipped SJW lectures us about how Ms. Rosoff is apparently not entitled to her opinion on the mission of YA literature, because all literature doesn’t matter!
“Books are to teach kids about the world, about being different or being brave. I really hate this idea that we need agendas in books. A great book has a philosophical, spiritual, intellectual agenda that speaks to many people – not just gay black boys. I’m sorry, but write a pamphlet about it. That’s not what books are for.” [says Ms. Rosoff]
This, is the literary equivalent of ‘All Lives Matter’.
Rosoff posits a definition of a book’s aim, and directly opposes that aim with the notion of fair and inclusive representation. The message is clear – cishet white stories are ‘universal’; everything else is an ‘agenda’. A picture book about a queer black boy cannot possess the ‘philosophical, spiritual, intellectual’ capacity needed to speak to ‘many people’. This is the crooked reasoning that sees Roland Emmerich whitewashStonewall to appeal to a wider audience (and fail). It’s a false view of the world, one steeped in privilege, that sees the very existence of someone unlike yourself as being inherently agenda driven, and one you never need to understand. A queer black boy doesn’t get to have the same fantastical escape through literature that a straight white boy does because the industry still sees him as a niche interest more akin to a political ping-pong ball than a worthy demographic. This insidious train of thought is racist, ignorant and rooted in ignorant lies about our world and the people who populate it. There’s no place for it in publishing, and the Rosoffs of the industry would do well to listen to those actively trying to change it.
Because apparently, according to this shrew, the only way queer, black boys can escape into the wondrous worlds of literature is through mirror images of themselves, not through great storytelling, no matter who tells it! And if you think that “white” stories are anything but “white” stories, well then you’re a privileged racist. If you believe literature should be for everyone, no matter what color the writer or the main characters are, then you’re an insensitive lout, who doesn’t deserve consideration or respect. If you insist on a world as it should be – judged by the content of its character, rather than the content of the melanin in its skin or its social identity – you’re a disgusting bigot.
The absolute twisted derangement of this pseudo-logic is mind-boggling. If you refuse to judge others by something as superficial as skin color or sexual identity, you’re a bigot. Orwell is probably spinning in his grave so hard, he’s spiraled his way to the earth’s core by now!
What is this hoopla about?
You see, there’s this book by Myles E. Johnson called “Large Fears” that tells the tale of a marginalized child – a boy whose favorite color is pink – who wants to escape to Mars, harboring a belief that he will be more accepted there, because he’s not treated well by his classmates. I haven’t read this book, so I have no idea whether it’s good or not. If I had read this book, I would judge it by its content alone. Is the plot interesting? Are the characters engaging? Is the book well-written and readable?
Well, apparently, that’s just horrible WRONGTHINK, according to a blogger, who thinks that if one judges a book by its content and not by its social message, they must hate diversity and want to somehow marginalize queer, black boys.
Yeah, that left me scratching my head.
Worse yet, because Ms. Rosoff apparently doesn’t think that books need to pound the reader over the head with a social justice message and because she disagrees that one doesn’t need a literary mirror to expand one’s mind and experience the joys of the stories one reads, she’s wrong – not because of any logical, rational reason, but because she’s white.
As stated on her website, “Meg Rosoff is the multi-award winning author of How I Live Now, Just In Case, What I Was, The Bride’s Farewell, There Is No Dog, Moose Baby and Picture Me Gone.” Let me add that she’s White.
Well, gosh! That just invalidates any opinion she may have that doesn’t toe the SJW line of victimhood and oppression!
“That’s not what books are for.” Queer black boys are not what books are for, says she.
Actually, that’s not what Ms. Rosoff said at all, as illustrated by the screen shot of her actual response to this book. Anyone with reading comprehension skills greater than that of a stoned hamster can see Ms. Rosoff said no such thing.
What she said, for the reading comprehension-challenged, is that books do not have the job of being a mirror, but rather they should expand kids’ minds. No, she certainly did not say, nor did she imply, that books are not for queer, black boys, but rather that literature should be for many people.
But you forget – that’s WRONGTHINK, and you’re a racist for thinking otherwise! Apparently, if you hold the view that books should be for everyone, you’re a racist. If you believe that the 2 percent of males and 3 percent of females who identified as “queer” in a Gay/Lesbian Consumer Online Census need an agenda to enjoy literature, you’re a bigot. Oh, and by the way, if you’re guilty of WRONGTHINK, it must be because you’re white, and by virtue of that unfortunate trait, a bigot.
That is really the only weapon they wield against you, because as much as they try to paint the world as a narrow-minded hive of bigots that victimizes their poor, inadequate selves by refusing to give them a pass on creating quality because of their self-assessed suffering, the world is, in fact, hurtling toward ruthless equality, and they’re simply not prepared for it. They don’t want actual fairness, because they feel woefully inadequate in that even playing field. So they wield the twisted sword of “social justice,” demanding special dispensation for whatever it is they deem to be their particular weakness, painting their ugly wounds and mediocrities as virtues, rather than working to overcome them, while pushing those who are “privileged” enough to not bare their oozing sores to the world into a marginalized role.
This, of course, will never fly with the perpetually-offended progressive self-loathers, whose only goal is to be accepted by the social justice “cool kids,” and since they haven’t figured out a way to parlay their life experiences into suffering and victimhood, the only thing they can hope to do is highlight their alleged “privilege,” apologize for not having suffered enough, and grovel at the feet of those who proclaim their perceived suffering as a virtue in order to bask in their misery and perhaps, if they’re “lucky,” have some of that oozing pus rub off on them.
My prediction is that they will dogpile on Ms. Rosoff and bully her into issuing a mea culpa in order to save her career and reputation from ruin. They will yell about her alleged “bigotry and racism” until she buckles under their condemnations.
I have not read any of Ms. Rosoff’s books, but I plan to. If the racist social justice warrior jerks can recommend reading books based only on race, sexual identity, and gender, I can recommend authors based on what they believe literature should be: inclusive, mind-expanding, joyous, spiritual, beautiful, and intellectual – without consideration to race or anything else that doesn’t have anything to do with the joy of reading!