ex libris: strange boy, strange article
June 23, 2002
Presentation counts for almost everything, sometimes.
Scotland on Sunday - Top Stories - Fury as schools to stock child gay sex book
You know, I like to think of myself as a rampaging liberal, I really do. I mean, no, I'm not as insane as Nader, but liberal, right? And, you know, the whole gay thing.
And I have to admit, the Scotsman's story about the book Strange Boy left me aghast at the concept. Or rather, not the concept, but .. a ten-year-old having sex? I'm not saying that ten year olds can't have sexual feelings or realize that they're gay. As far as that goes, the actual concept of the book doesn't bother me. It's the idea that an author of a children's book would present a ten year old having sex with a fourteen year old as a good thing to young adults that made me wonder if Mr Magrs was quite off his rocker.
However, taking one article's word for the content of a book -- especially this book -- seemed a bit unwise, so I looked about for a bit more information.
The Guardian contains an actual review of Strange Boy (by Philip Pullman, of all people). And, intriguingly, he doesn't mention the gay sex aspect at all. Curious, really. You'd think the whole "ten year olds having sex" bit would just leap out at him and demand to be talked about, but no, nothing mentioned. He only says, "To deal with that aspect of the book at once: the narrator is a 10-year-old boy who feels an interest in other boys' penises, especially the one belonging to his older friend John, for whom he has a tender and delicate regard. And that's it. He does not mention it often, and very little is done about it. The only people likely to be disturbed by this are professional fusspots, who don't matter."
The Independent's review also somehow fails to mention the whole "ten year old having sex" thing, although it does make more of a mention of the issue of sexuality. Nicholas Tucker notes, Already different from other boys his age because of his intelligence, there are hints that one day David may differ in his sexual orientation. But the polymorphous sexuality of his male peers at school is a reminder of the fluidity, in every sense, of passions at this age. David has to find his own way, drawing on the courage that helps him to renounce his immature father – one of a series of characters who are neither villains nor heroes, but flawed humans." His principal issue with the book is that it's really a book about children, but for adults, and shouldn't have been listed for young adults and children at all.
Absent the actual book -- and after all this, I suppose I should have a look, but somehow, I suspect that it will be immensely difficult to find in the US -- I'm assuming that the Scotsman decided that lying about the book's content was a good way to stir up its readers, while pretending to be ever so wonderfully openminded about the whole homosexuality concept. Shameful of them, really.
Posted by iain at 11:35 PM
the real r. kelly
June 5, 2002
R. Kelly indicted on child pornography charges: R&B star R. Kelly was indicted Wednesday on child pornography charges stemming from a videotape that officials say shows the Grammy winner having sex with an underage girl, a source in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office said. --- June 5, 2002 --- BY JIM DEROGATIS AND ABDON M. PALLASCH STAFF REPORTERS, Chicago Sun Times
Good grief.
Well, I hope that either he really did what he's accused of, or that it can be definitively proven that he didn't do what he's accused of doing. Anything other than a very definite result, and his career is destroyed. He's already being hammered, and nothing has yet been proven. (That said ... leaving this particular charge to the side, his history as noted in the article is truly amazing. And yet he purports to be a born-again Christian who doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage. Curious.)
Even with other people saying that the girl and Kelly stated, in pre-legal-charges days, that they'd had sex together, I'm surprised that the state brought this case. I can't imagine that they'll be able to get a verdict beyond a reasonable doubt when the victim and her parents are adamant that it simply didn't happen. The state's attorney can be as aggressive as they'd like; refusing to testify is not the same as testifying that something simply didn't happen. At this point, even if she changed her story, it wouldn't really help the prosecution's case; the defense merely has to point out that either she was lying when she said, through all these weeks, that it didn't happen, or she'd be lying later if she said that it did. Either way, she's marked as an unreliable witness, thus producing reasonable doubt.
The reaction from various people is really fascinating, and demonstrates the powers of the media and of perception. Different artists who were perfectly willing to do projects with him before are now unwilling to release the results of those projects. Ministers are denouncing him from the pulpit. Sales of his recordings have plummeted.
And still ... nothing is yet proven. He's only just been charged.
Apparently, "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work for celebrities. (It doesn't work for anyone in these media-saturated days, actually -- if it ever did -- but that's our dirty little secret.)
The Real R. Kelly (Interlude) from TP-2.com
Damn all these motherfuckers are here
Can you believe this shit?
All these motherfuckers claimin' to be R. Kelly
What they don't know is I'm R. Kelly
Look at that motherfucker over there
He ain't even got a gold teeth
What the fuck is he tryna pull
I don't know
(I'm R. Kelly, I'm R. Kelly)
Okay now will the real R. Kelly please stand up
That's what I'm talkin' bout
Nigga you ain't no R. Kelly
Then, again, that's the question, isn't it? Is the real R. Kelly a man who says he's a born again Christian who doesn't believe in nonmarital sex (but nonetheless writes a LOT of songs about the subject) or is he a man who has a thing for sex with underage girls and taping it with and without their permission?
I suppose we may be about to find out.
Posted by iain at 03:27 PM | Comments (6)