duncan heights

To all telemarketers, people asking for donations, and everyone else brazen enough to call me without already knowing me:

It’s not “Diana.” It’s not “Vee-anna.” It’s certainly not “Um, I’m not sure how to pronounce your name, ma’am…”

For Christ-sakes, my name is “Viannah.” Viannah. VIANNAH. Can I make it any more clear, or are you all just idiots?

That is all.

Sincerely and angrily,
Viannah

PS: “Your Highness” will also do just fine.

Heaven
—by Rupert Brooke, 1887-1915—

Fish (fly-replete, in depth of June,
Dawdling away their wat’ry noon)
Ponder deep wisdom, dark or clear,
Each secret fishy hope or fear.
Fish say, they have their Stream and Pond;
But is there anything Beyond?
This life cannot be All, they swear,
For how unpleasant, if it were!
One may not doubt that, somehow, Good
Shall come of Water and of Mud;
And, sure, the reverent eye must see
A Purpose in Liquidity.
We darkly know, by Faith we cry,
The future is not Wholly Dry.
Mud unto mud!—Death eddies near—
Not here the appointed End, not here!
But somewhere, beyond Space and Time,
Is wetter water, slimier slime!
And there (they trust) there swimmeth One
Who swam ere rivers were begun,
Immense, of fishy form and mind,
Squamous, omnipotent, and kind;
And under that Almighty Fin,
The littlest fish may enter in.
Oh! never fly conceals a hook,
Fish say, in the Eternal Brook,
But more than mundane weeds are there,
And mud, celestially fair;
Fat caterpillars drift around,
And Paradisal grubs are found;
Unfading moths, immortal flies,
And the worm that never dies.
And in that Heaven of all their wish,
There shall be no more land, say fish.

Okay, first of all, what? Apparently, some over-protective parent made a stink about nudity in a manga she found her son reading in a bookstore. I have some problems with this whole thing, but let me first lead you to more information (in case you don’t know much about Absolute Boyfriend): Official, ANN, Wikipedia.

First problem. Sandra McWaters, the mother who made the fuss, says, “My son was doing what he normally does, go to the children’s section to look at books.” This statement alone implies that (1) the child is not old enough for “teenage” or “young adult” or “adult” books—the article never actually gives the boy’s age, (2) McWaters let her son go to the children’s section without her, and (3) she assumed the children’s section was “safe” for her son. Okay, so if the kid is #1, the mother should not be doing #2, and—even if she did—it’s not the store’s responsibility to deal with #3… it’s hers. A bookstore is not a daycare. Parents who use stores as personal daycares—even if they’re “only a couple of aisles away”—are really irritating for those of us who go to actually, hm, I don’t know, read books. (What a novel idea!*) Granted, the article doesn’t actually say that she left her her son in the children’s section, but it sure sounds like she did.

Second problem. The bookstore assumed that, because the manga had pictures, it was for children. Anyone who’s ever read any hentai or yaoi knows that the “if it has pictures, it’s for kids” equation is simply untrue. Jeff Skipper, a marketing guy for Books-A-Million, says “We have taken a look at the proximity of our manga department and kids department and have decided to relocate the manga department to another area of the store,” but McWaters acts like her son found the manga in the kids’ section, which isn’t necessarily true, since (apparently) the manga and kids’ stuff are so close together.

Third problem. The title of the article is “Book Store to Relocate Adult Graphic Novel Found in Kids’ Section” but right underneath the title, on the right, is a link to a video called, “Book Store Considers Pulling Graphic Children’s Novel.” If anyone involved in any part of this altercation or article had actually read some of Absolute Boyfriend, he or she would know that it’s not an “adult” graphic novel OR a “children’s” graphic novel. It has a rating on the back cover of “T for Teen” and is intended for older teenage girls. McWaters says, “I expected that they would be in an adult bookstore…” as if porn/sex/adult stores would actually stock this kind of thing. Fact is that most (if not all) shojo manga are waaaaay too tame for “adult” sales.

Fourth problem. The end of the article notes that McWaters won’t be going back to that particular Books-A-Million. That’s fine; it’s her right… blah blah. However, if that’s the case, why is the bookstore bothering with rearranging the shelves? I understand that they don’t want this kind of thing to happen again, but COME ON… Can’t parents take any responsibility for their own kids?

Fifth problem. The whole article is just plain poorly researched. And it’s not good reporting at all. I’m not even going to go into the grammar, etc., here. It’s… just bad writing.

I agree with most of the comments made about the article, at least as of early this morning: 11 December 2007, and I’ve posted a link to this review there as well. Scott Bieser, one of the commenters, says it best this way: “Heaven [forbid] that this woman’s son should learn what a naked teenage boy looks like.”

* No pun intended. Seriously. It was completely unintended.

OMG. This video cracked me up. Totally made my day. ^____________^