Here's a first. A rightwing blogger weighs in on MFD!
Surprise! She doesn't like it.
The blogger in question is a housewife and blogger from suburban Chicago. Her grand cause is public libraries, particularly her local branch. She has been waging war on this poor institution for several years, specifically because it, like virtually all public libraries, doesn't have filters on its public computers, so pedophiles can use them to view child porn. Really. Not that anyone is doing that, there's just the possibility that they can. This has become a total obsession with this homeschooler mommy. She's also one of those book-yanking buffoons who believes all objectionable tomes should be removed from the shelves.
She has peppered her local library with Freedom of Information requests, has a Facebook fan page where she logs her complaints and the library's many "crimes", gets in arguments with library board members at meetings, confronts librarians on the job and tapes their exchanges with her phone, pulls objectionable books off the shelves and rants about them, and makes a general nuisance of herself, all with an air of holier-than-thou pomposity and a toothy grin. It's all the usual things gadflies do. Seems like every town has at least one. Those poor librarians must cringe when she stomps through the front entrance every day.
She weighs in here on MFD. Why? From her statements in the video she posted on Youtube, it's mainly because the American Library Assoc. gave MFD an Alex Award, which honors the best books for teen readers every year. Right in her wheelhouse and her suspicions (and hackles) are immediately raised. Librarians love it and it's a book about a serial killer. It must be objectionable and inappropriate, right?
She starts off by stating how much she dislikes graphic novels. Nothing like dropping those preconceptions, honey! She also hates my art. "This guy's artwork just grosses me out."
She admonishes her "audience" (which appears to be her off-camera co-blogger and a kid, very likely her own, who sends in questions) because they don't know who Dahmer is. She then proceeds to give a laundry list of factually incorrect statements about his life and crimes! She even manages to work in that Darwinism is to blame for Dahmer's spree! Holy crap, what a maroon.
Among the highlights:
She places blame on ME for Dahmer's crimes, because I didn't intervene when I was 16. "If (Derf) had been more aware of his role in society, perhaps he could have saved a bunch of people from being sliced up and eaten. Don't think he's a great guy. I think he's a jerk"
Oh. OK. Apparently, she missed the major theme of the book, about indifference and culpability, and the brutal honesty that I employ to discuss these issues. The overall tone of regret that infuses the book also sails right past her. Not surprisingly, our conservo-blogger here is not the most perceptive of readers.
She also worries that teenagers who read this book could be turned into roadkill loving pervs! "What kind of kid is reading this? What if it's someone who is dealing with this kind of issue? What it it's a kid who didn't think he'd be sexually turned on by killing animals and then gets a look at this and thinks, oh, that might be fun!"
Now, THAT'S a new one! Comix turning kids into pervs. Calling Dr. Werthem!
In the end, she grudgingly confesses it's not the outrageous book about murder and necrophilia she obviously hoped it would be when she plucked it off the shelf.
"It's a sad one, but I see how it could start a good conversation. So I'm not gonna give this one a total thumbs down. It's not terrible."
I debated it, but I won't post the video. I'm not giving her the hits, because I'm guessing she doesn't get many.