Opinions are like assholes, every one has one and they all stink. –Anonymous

Have you ever read the reviews on Amazon? Don’t. They are infuriating. Sometimes, when I need a distraction, I will scroll through, reading the reviews for books I know will inflame people. Dan Savage’s The Kid. Anything by Christopher Hitchens. The Harry Potter Books.

Some of the better excerpts (I left the typos):

From The Kid:

The following is the greatest arguement against gay adoption I’ve ever read. Ironically (and tragically), it comes from the author: “Having children is no longer about propagating the species . . . [it is] something for grownups to do, a pasttime, a hobby. So why not kids? Gay men need hobbies, too.” Raising a child a hobby? How can anyone consider himself “grownup” when he sees raising a child as nothing more than a hobby?

I’m will to bet that, since Savage is a satirist, he was joking. Just a guess.

From Skipping Towards Gommorah:

For Dan Savage, a human being is nothing more than a bundle of desires, and life is merely the act of appropriating these through their gratification, transforming desire into our “identity.” Whether we gratify them with other people, or in the deepest solitude, matters little. Either way the good life is the life of fulfilled desire, and the good society that which allows people the maximum choice to realize pleasure in the way they see fit. And so we become consumers of ourselves; enjoying ourselves as the produce that we have crafted from the impulses that we discover within ourselves. What an impoverished vision! What sad complacency! Denied is all hope that there could be anything more than mere whims and their momentary satisfaction: that our desires, instead of “skipping to Gemorrah,” might overleap themselves, and strive towards truth, beauty, goodness, or towards the contemplation of nature in its ephemerality and contingency. Yet if Savage’s book excludes the very possibility that there is anything beyond mere desire, if it dismisses all the human possibilities that cannot be reduced to mere choice, his greatest disservice is to desire itself, and, above all, eros. Laid bare in its nakedness, it loses all its charm – it is no longer even sordid, but merely bland. Mere pleasure is a trifle. Is it this we seek when we fall in love, or the sumptuous mysteries with which lovers have shrouded their lusts? What is all the cooing and orgasmic moaning of barely-pubescent pop singers measured against the first bars of Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, or Cherubino’s arias in The Marriage of Figaro? Only someone who remains a Christian moralist at heart, and has never felt the warming rays of Pagan Greece, could lump lust and pride together with gluttony and sloth. Rousseau put it best when he said: “I know only one sense whose affections have no admixture of anything moral in them. It is taste. So gluttony is always the dominant vice only of people who feel nothing.” The greatest tragedies have been written of lust and pride; sloth and gluttony are the subjects only of farce. I doubt that Mozart, for all his genius, could have written an opera about a man who was not a seducer, but a pig. I have no fondness for religious fanatics and philistine moralizers, yet I would choose Falwell or Bennet over Savage, if the choice had to be made. The former may rail against eros, but they do not despoil it with a too cheap embrace.

This guy is one of those pseudo intellectuals who sips white wine while wearing a beret and trying desperately to believe he is actually cooler than other people. He also loves to listen to himself talk. And reads Ayn Rand. He actually uses the word “cooing.” Who fucking says that?

Going to a fat acceptance convention to learn about gluttony is like going to a NAACP convention to learn about watermelon. Boyfriend does not have a clue.

I’m still trying to decide if this is racist. Or sexist. Or fattist?

Harry Potter:

I am so tired of hearing how this book and all of the other Potter books are classics–they are not classics–classics all have the earmark of a strong ethical message which every one of these books lack. Moreover the character development is nonexistent. What do I mean by that? A well developed character is one that has depth, that shows many, often contradictory traits–like a REAL human being. Look at Draco Malfoy, look at Hermony Grainger–when do they ever show any differentiation from the characters they were originally portrayed as–NEVER! Do not mention these books in the same breath as Lewis or Tolkein–they bear absolutely no resemblance. As for the fact that so many people love them–there’s no accounting for taste. These books have yet to win any awards for children’s literature or for fantasy or science fiction literature. AND THEY WON’T! The first book is great because it gets kids
reading, but the fourth is just more of the same–so boring…our culture has reached a sad state of affairs…why don’t we eat McDonald’s every night, and call the Potter books classics?

Do they know it’s a fucking kids book?

I personally believe that Rowling has put a spell on these books, which targets naive or imperceptive individuals (selectively children who are to young to know better) and somehow leads them to believe that Harry Potter is oh-so-great and perfectly normal. It is not. It is not normal that a book divulging into the subjects of witchcraft and immoral circumstances can be such a hit and with negligible controversy. There are books that do not even touch these premises and are perfectly reasonable that have stirred heated controversy. Rowling takes her touchy subject and glazes it over with charming characters and their `apparently’ moral deeds. So it’s almost like it doesn’t matter anymore. To hell with it that this book is actually talking about `nice’ witches and derisively calling normal humans `muggles’, which is ironic considering that all of its non-wiccan readers would be in the `muggles’ category. I don’t care if there are `nice’ witches, witchcraft is witchcraft, black magic is black magic, therefore immoral cannot be moral. Witchcraft is not a decent practice. I am glad that I have not been dragged into the sadly demonic and rampant abyss that is Harry Potter.

I’m betting you’re praying to prevent Obama’s crazy family in Kenya from putting a spell on McCain, aren’t you?

The characters are obviously derived from racism. I do not have a problem with this. After all we are all racists, and anyone that says racism is wrong, is the one that’s wrong. That said, J. K. Rowling does not use this in any way. She could have used it to create some controversy, create conflict among the characters, explain why some people are friends and some aren’t or easiest of all, humor. But she doesn’t, why not? The only racism she uses is Hermione being a half breed. It would have been so much better if, instead of one parent being non-magical, that parent were French.

Is this the same person that made the NAACP = Watermelon comment?

harry potter and the sorcerer’s stone is a boring book.i strongley suggest you all to skeep on from reading this 3 words- a waste of time!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.