Read The Douchebag Bible Online
Authors: TJ Kirk
complaining about how unfair things are is ever
going to balance the equation. If that strategy
really worked, wouldn’t it have worked by now?
Addendum: A lot of commenters are asking
“Well, why would there be black people in 10th
century Scotland anyway?” There is a small
percentage (0.16%) of black Scots in present times,
and they have apparently been there for quite a few
generations. Whether they stretch back to the 10th
century is not something I know, nor is it something
I care enough about to research.
But historical accuracy aside, plausibility is
not really an issue here. 'Mulan' was set entirely in
China, and yet they still managed to shoehorn
Eddie Murphy in there. It can be done. Though, in
fairness, he was a dragon in that movie, not a black
man.
The other comment I’ve seen arising is that
black people have gotten certain rights and
privileges by complaining in the past. No. They got
them by demonstrating, conducting campaigns of
civil disobedience, participating in highly
organized boycotts, etc. It’s not the same thing.
Of course, there are times when I find myself siding
with the PC pussies, such as in the case of Orson
Scott Card.
When I was young, I read a book called
‘Ender’s Game’ by Orson Scott Card and so, I’m sure,
have many of you. It’s a very popular book among
young adults (and adult-adults as well, I’m sure). It
is, in my opinion, a very good book. I’m not alone in
believing this. It has 2,400 five star reviews on
Amazon. It won both the Nebula Award and the
Hugo Award (prestigious in sci-fi circles). And next
year, ‘Ender’s Game’ the movie is set to come out,
featuring Harrison Ford.
This is a book that meant something to me as a
kid. It was empowering in a lot of ways, with its
themes of unashamed intelligence, looking outside
of the box, persevering against adversity and finding
your own power through thought and calculated
action.
The problem: the aforementioned author,
Orson Scott Card, is a completely homophobic
asshole. This is not the case of the guy making an off-
color joke and the LGBT crowd taking it too
seriously. This is not a case of him being
misconstrued or misinterpreted in any way. He is
proudly homophobic.
He called gay marriage, “The end of
democracy.”
He is on the board of NOM (An activist group
dedicated to fighting gay marriage).
He actually said this: “Laws against
homosexual behavior should remain on the books,
not to be indiscriminately enforced against anyone
who happens to be caught violating them, but to be
used when necessary to send a clear message that
those who flagrantly violate society’s regulation of
sexual behavior cannot be permitted to remain as
acceptable, equal citizens within that society.”
He is a man who is, at best, confused. At worst,
evil. And I’ve bought at least three of his books. Can
I, in good conscience, ever buy another one? Can
anyone, in good conscience, see the movie based on
his work? Do we judge the art by the sins of the artist,
especially when said artist is still alive and profiting
directly from our purchases? Or does art stand alone,
separate from the flaws of the artist?
My conclusion is this: FUCK ORSON SCOTT
CARD. I hope he dies soon so that I can buy his
books without imagining some of my money going
to him.
I'd like to shift our focus back to music, if I may. I
have a controversial opinion on modern music and
that opinion is this: contemporary music should be
judged more by the quality of its lyrics than by the
music itself.
This is not to say that I discard purely
instrumental pieces. I have enjoyed many electronic
pieces that incorporate little or no lyrical content
whatsoever. Further, I acknowledge that a lot of
music genres—metal, bluegrass, folk, alternative
country, etc—do incorporate musical complexity
that bears being judged on its own merits, regardless
of lyrical quality. The level of artistry, precision and
sheer emotional force renders certain musical pieces
exceptional in and of themselves. But no one would
listen to the music of Lady Gaga or even my hero
Marilyn Manson by itself with no vocal/lyrical
accompaniment. It would be incredibly monotonous
and repetitive.
Most of the music that is popular is written to
only be interesting with vocal accompaniment. So
why should the vocal accompaniment be so banal?
Why should people sing about such boring and
bland topics? Why not infuse your lyrics with depth
and meaning? Why not convey something
important? How did we get from The Beatles, The
Doors and The Rolling Stones to Justin Bieber,
Nikki Minaj and Nickelback?
It is true that The Beatles started off as a boy
band. But then they started experimenting with
powerful psychoactive drugs and the music
improved incredibly. The Beatles, The Doors and
The Rolling Stones were all mainstream acts in their
time. They were not under ground. You didn't have
to dig around to find them. They were the
mainstream. Now the mainstream is conspicuously