"I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no one judges me."
"I'll judge you all and make damn sure that no one judges me."
I Start Fires! |
2002-05-13
Piggy's specs were nicked at: 12:08 p.m.
I usually don't make a practice of destroying a published author and eating their babies. I may not like a certain book, but I won't foam about the writer totally sux0ring. One reader's jizzrag is another reader's Bible, and to be published is a great accomplishment. But sometimes I see things that would make a stone dragon weep blood. For the sake of humanity's goodness, such tragedies cannot be allowed to slip into the night like a thief fleeing candlelight. So today, sit back in your chair and enjoy the Conch's equivilent of a full lunar eclipse during the Second Coming with background music by Elvis. There's this woman, see, by the name of Nancy Stouffer. She wrote some books about nuclear babies (I wish I were joking) called "Muggles" back in the early 1980s. The books went largely untouched due to a dangerously high Suck Factor, and the children of my generation proved themselves a credit to the human race by doing so. Years passed, and peace prospered except for that nasty Gulf War business. Along comes JK Rowling and the phenomenon of Harry Potter. And up rises Nancy Stouffer like an angry fart. She's been rebuilt and she now goes under the alias Stouffer starts thumping her book and declares that Rowling ripped off her "Muggles." Let's take a good, long look here. In Stouffer's colourless mire of an imagination, "Muggles" are actually humans, the mutated survivours of a nuclear holocaust that ended a years-long war wrought with famine, disease, betrayl, and all that good stuff. Muggles look like human babies and built their society around "The Book of Tales" or something twatty like that. They sing six-page songs about "the sun shinning in grandma's hair" (yes, the typo is in the book), even though the "purple haze" that covers their world blocks out the sun entirely. Oh yeah, and Muggles are bald, grandma. But why shatter illusions? These little dog-faced bastards are growing plants and trees in a world sheathed by irradiated mist. "Muggles" in Rowling's world are people who don't use magic. "Muggles" in the 30's were marijuana joints, mon. But let's humour Stouffer for a little longer and watch her twist under the hot irons. In the obviously self-condutcted interview on her homepage (which is worth 20 rainy afternoons' entertainment), the first question the "interviewer" asks her is, "Has your life been threatened?" That's right. Instead of, "describe your universe" or, "what's your inspiration," Stouffer's imaginary friend asks her if she's been theatened by rabid Harry Potter fans. And Stouffer is only too obliged to tell us about her being shot at, and how the act was endorsed by Rowling herself and her evil Satan books in their bindings of human skin. Eventually, Stouffer gets to the part of the interview where she's asked what she thinks of the Harry Potter books. Stouffer sniffs that she has "No comment," but she does not approve of "stealing other peoples' ideas." There there Stouffer. You don't have to admit you've never read the Harry Potter books. Your arguments before the court speak for themselves. How can anyone doubt your accusations of, "both books take place in a far away land" and "both books have fleets of ships?" And when I heard that "both books have castles," I positively gasped. Shame on Rowling! Well, as is evident by my shameless pissing on Stouffer's body while she's being consumed by quicksand, I must be one of those god-cursed "Potter fans" who are "in denial" about Rowling being a rip off artist, right? Well, no. I like Harry Potter all right. The books are a fun, high-sugar snack that I usually forget about the second I close 'em. The Dementors are cool, and I surprised myself when I felt bad for Hagrid's when the giant's Care of Magical Creatures class turned into a bust. But I'm not even going to bother calling myself a fan, because if you quizzed me on the books, I'd flunk. I haven't even read Goblet of Fire yet, and Philosopher's Stone bored me to tears (which, luckily, Chamber of Secrets made up for). But I know horrible, horrible writing when I see it. If you've already clicked on the link to Stouffer's site, you're probably not even going to bother finishing this Conch entry. There's no need to. If the images of the "muggles" didn't blind you or lead you to claw your eyes out, you've laughed until your rib cartalige snapped and you had to be carted off to the hospital. But Stouffer isn't just a bad writer, which could be forgiven. She's a bad, vengeful writer, a very dangerous beast indeed. The fact that she's suing Rowling for those "comparisons' I made earlier is dumb enough. But this woman also never shuts up about how kid friendly her books are, unlike Rowlings'. Let's interview. I'm not about to drop money for "The Legend of Ra and the Hunk of Shit," but many brave men and women put up chapter reviews so that our children may learn that acts of dishonour can indeed happen to a defenseless piece of paper, acts that must never be repeated. A minute of silence for these bold people. (Six seconds later) First of all, go to amazon.com or barnesandnoble.com, where reader reviews are in abundance. Type in "NK Stouffer" or "The Legend of Ra and the Muggles." I've never seen so many one-star reviews for any book. The cry is unaminous: "This story sucks donkey balls." And for all the same reasons. The story is peppered with grammar mistakes and typos. Tenses shift back and forth. Th-there's a-a-a ch-ch-charac-t-t-ter wh-ho-o t-t-t-t-tal-ks l-l-i-ke th-th-th-is and Stouffer points out that "the seacow stuttered" three times in the same paragraph, in case we didn't get it the first time we screamed at the book in frustration while trying to read the seacow's lines. Read the "intro" on Stouffer's page. That's the acutal introduction to her disaster, the honest-to-God publication. And this book, by the way, is intended for children ages 6 to 12. Yeah, kids are really gonna understand the complicated goverment motives behind nuclear war, just like they're gonna be able to follow Stouffer's cast of millions, most of which are birthed in one page and never heard from again. And I don't think the 12-and-over crowd wants to read about little bald headed hobbits with asses on their face polishing mushrooms when they could be throwing lightbulbs at passing cars. Furthermore, Stouffer proves her books are "kid friendly" when Lady "Cat" Catherine flirts with her Butler while her "beloved" husband is still warm in his grave. How did this big book of language-rape become published? Sweet mysteries of the world. The story itself involves Lady fucking CAT setting her babies adrift on the ocean for eight days, unprotected and unfed, until they end up in wherever the hell it is the Muggles live. As soon as they arrive, the nuclear radiation in the Muggles' land clears up and the sunshine appears. Now grandma's hair really can "shine in the sunlight." Of course, one twin grows up to be pukey good, and the other one grows up to be cliche evil. The evil dude hates everyone for no reason, and forms a splinter colony in a "radioactive tree" which mutates the evil Muggles into purple, bulgy eyed freaks. In the interest of wonky science, they build a boat out of hot tar and give themselves nasty burns, which they "cool off by jumping into salt water." I'm not about to pick on a kid's book for not being scientifically accurate, but Jesus. By the way, another "Rip off" Stouffer points out is Rowling's character "Neville" who was obviously taken from Finally, this woman claims to be a pure-hearted serf who's been wronged. I don't know, if I made a kids' series and dedicated the website to the progress of my court battles for my little readers, I'd probably be diagnosed as an evil dog. So why should Stouffer get off easy? Hm. Twins adrift, one good, one bad. Watch out, Bible! Your saintly ass is next.
Beast from Water | Beast from Air |