 |
...do it openly, instead of attempting some kind of subliminal crypto-pedophile book promotion campaign.
Just saying "no Shakespeare" is fine, but then you are going to turn around and poison young minds with Shakespeare-derived works? That's just selling Shakespeareaninsm under the guise of Morality. You would be like the the Pharisees changing money in the temple, hypocritically trying to appear pius when in fact you are blashpemying every thing good and decent in all aspects of your plot.
Take this "Les Miserables" ploy. Shakespearean through and through. Or take Asimov. Shakespeareanism pervades every page of his work. 'The Mule' for example, in the Foundation series (an idealization of Marxist historical theory in itself, as if you didn't know), is just a re-contextualization of William Shakespeare's typical arch-villians, especially Richard III and Aaron the Moor. Hello? Not that we should be surprised by this, considering where Asimov's sympathies lie.
A section reviewing decent literature is a fine idea, or else reviews of known filth, with appropriate warnings and adult-check devices installed, would be fine. But don't claim to be presenting works demonstrating decent values, by virtuous authors, and then slip in vile influences and subersive deviancy. Any and all Shakespeare-derived or Shakespeare-influenced books should be either eschewed (preferred) or clearly labeled as unworthy and diabolical.
And don't think you can just substitute some other brand of child-molester propaganda, like Plato or any Platonic or Platonically-influenced books (Dante, anyone?) and call yourself some kind of saint. Sure you can fool yourself, but WE will be watching, my sick, sick friend!
I do, I do, I do
--Bikini Kill
|
Stories
