Part of my job is to correct children who use terms like, "that's so gay," when they really mean, "I dislike this particular thing." You won't often hear me using that particular combination of words.
But really: This is so gay.
And I don't mean that I dislike this particular thing, although I dislike this particular thing. I mean it is actually more homosexual than George Takei dancing to Donna Summer in a feather boa and tiara, except that that would be awesome, and the horror that awaits you should you click that link up there is not in any way awesome.
You see, Orson Scott Card has decided that what Hamlet
is lacking is a) moral certainty, and b) rampant homophobia. So he's rewritten it. The title itself, Hamlet's Father
, is problematic in itself as Hamlet's father was also Hamlet, but that's nothing compared to the, uh, liberties
Card has apparently taken with the source material.
From the review:
Here's the punch line: Old King Hamlet was an inadequate king because he was gay, an evil person because he was gay, and, ultimately, a demonic and ghostly father of lies who convinces young Hamlet to exact imaginary revenge on innocent people. The old king was actually murdered by Horatio, in revenge for molesting him as a young boy—along with Laertes, and Rosencrantz, and Guildenstern, thereby turning all of them gay. We learn that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are now "as fusty and peculiar as an old married couple. I pity the woman who tries to wed her way into that house."
The thing is that, while I'm sure that the devoutly Mormon Card intended his masterpiece as some sort of cautionary tale about the evils of homosexuality (for those who lost track of him after Ender's Game,
that's seriously the only sort of story he writes now), it comes off as, well. Either he's a fangirl with slash goggles welded to his face, or he doth protest too much. And I really think it's the latter. I'm pretty sure that there are gay porn stars who think less about buttsex than Orson Scott Card does, and it's their job
to do it.
Apparently this is a real thing in the world,
and neither an epic troll by Rain Taxi Review nor by Subterranean Press. Which means someone—a famous author, no less!—thought that it would be good to write this kind of drivel (and probably typed it with one hand), and then a publisher—which has put out some great books over the years—read it and decided that it would make money if published. Along the way one or more editors may have had to read it, and no one, no one
, cried out, "wait maybe it's not the best ever idea to write a version of Hamlet
where the old King is a serial rapist with a magic cock that turns everyone gay and where Hamlet is completely convinced that there's an afterlife." (I leave it to your interpretation, Gentle Reader, as to whether sabotabby
is more disturbed by the homophobia or by a depiction of Hamlet where the prince is entirely convinced as to the existence of God.)
I am confused as to how one person, let alone multiple, none of whom are 4chan, decided that this book was a good idea.
For some reason, Subterranean Press has decided on a limited run of 1000,
so get it while it's ho—no, wait, that's the opposite of hot.Hat-tip: zingerella, who finds the most WTF things on the internet.