The cat forgotten on the moon.

~ Sunday, July 1 ~
Permalink

katiecoyle:

Involuntary Kegels: I just saw this on the county library FAQ and I’m dying of happiness

liquidiousfleshbag:

If they were just like “no these books are dumb and you’re dumb so we’re not carrying them” it’d be one thing, but they mention that they carry fucktons of other books like that. So it’s not like they’re shaming ladies for wanting word boners, they’re just refusing to carry fucked-up books.

I can’t really be mad at people for refusing to stock books that encourage and romanticize abusive relationships.

Okay, but at no point in their mission statement do they mention the abusive quality of the central relationship. They say they aren’t carrying it because it’s not good. If these are crusaders for healthy relationship models, more power to them! I look forward to their notes regarding their choice not to carry Wuthering Heights. And they should probably drop all their Hemingway, and Mailer, and Bret Easton Ellis, and John Updike. Weird that they haven’t done that yet?

Don’t forget to get rid of the Faulkner too!

I work at the reference desk for a university library and we acquire chick lit/popular lit all the time. I think my bosses in charge of acquisitions would rather people be reading “lower quality” popular novels than not reading at all. Whatevr, Wake County Library.

(Source: ouiser--boudreaux)

Tags: ridiculous lit snobbery is ridiculous
68 notes
reblogged via katiecoyle