Moo Reviews Classic Writer Robert Newton Peck

When I was in middle school I found a copy of Robert Newton Peck's "Wild Cat" on my library's shelves. I never forgot it. It was gritty and entertaining and I LOVED it. It's about the lives of feral cats in Manhattan.

I added it to my Amazon wish list for later since I loved it so much as a child. I went in to find something off my wish list and I see some worthless shitkicking moocunt breeder has reviewed WC. Observe!

http://www.amazon.com/Wild-Cat-Robert-Newton-Peck/product-reviews/0380017288/ref=cm_cr_pr_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addOneStar&showViewpoints=0

"This book is not appropriate for my shitlings!"

Fuck her with a rusty chainsaw. That book should have been a classic and in my mind it is. This review is so fucking retarded I wish I could slap the bitch that wrote it. "OMG is The Happy Sadist for children!???"

I'm going to put the entire review here and hope that someone else can wrap their head around the stupid:

I found this book at a thrift shop and soon saw why! Written ostensibly for children, the story is about the hard life of feral cats and is seen from their point of view. It depicts graphic violence, sex, and (worse still) a combination of the two. There's anthropomorphization throughout---the cats have humanlike feelings---so a child reading or hearing this story might empathize but at the same time be horrified. The rapelike mating scene made me squeamish as there was a distinctly pornographic undertone to it. The author also has a book entitled "The Happy Sadist" available. I hope it's not for children. ("Mommy, what's a sadist?")

In fairness, Peck is a farmer; someone constantly around animals may get so used to their natural behavior that it's taken it for granted. But I don't think children should get such a close-up view.

Kim, we need your virtual scalpel again

What the fuck is she getting at? I've never read the book, but I'm certain there's no rape-like mating seen. I have to wonder what kind of shit she lets her children read.

Quote
satansbitch
I'm going to put the entire review here and hope that someone else can wrap their head around the stupid:

Here's one response - from today!

A. M. A. says:

This book is a classic, and I read it when I was in middle school and at that point a budding crazy cat lady. I have loved it ever since. I have no memory whatsoever about being "horrified" by it except to realize that the reason there are feral cats at all is because people won't get their pets spayed and neutered, or dispose of them like trash when they become inconvenient.

As for whether the book is for children, your preciouses have to learn about real life some time. The age range for this book, at least according to Barnes and Noble, is 11-17. So it is not a book for young children and isn't billed as such. It's for YA, and hopefully you read whatever books you're giving to little kids before you give it to them, and should know that this book is not for kids young enough to still be calling you "mommy" and aren't old enough to use a dictionary.

"The author also has a book entitled "The Happy Sadist" available. I hope it's not for children. ("Mommy, what's a sadist?")"

You hope a book with the word "sadist" in the title isn't for your small kids?? It's too hard to look up the title on Google to find out what it's about?

Instead of reviewing whether or not this book (or any book) is appropriate for your brats, why don't you review whether or not the story itself is actually any good??

(end)

Fess up, which one of us is 'A.M.A.'?

In all honesty, I don't understand all this rewieving things for kids at all.

I mean, I get that some books and movies aren't for kids. When the theme is too dark or the scenes too bloodied.

But right now, there are people who won't show their children scene of deaths. And I am not talking about people being hacked down with a chainshaw (which is understandable). I am talking about the death of Mufasa in The Lion King or such. My parents had no problem in giving me books with people who died in them or telling me fairy tales with dead inside. I understood it and wasn't destroyed for life. Apparently, nowadays breeders don't want to tell their kids moooh and duh can die. Why, I don't know.

They are idiotic.

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

Quote
drake
Fess up, which one of us is 'A.M.A.'?

i used to manage a bookstore, and you cannot believe the PC bullshit parents spout regarding children's books; every book is too scary, violent, racist, etc for the snowflakes. examples:

-one moo did not want to buy her son the "diary of a wimpy kid" book (even though kids LOVE that series) because one kid calls another kid an idiot.

-a moo objecting to "little house on the prairie" because she thought the way the native americans were portrayed was insulting. i've also heard the same "it's racis!t" argument against "huck finn."

- harry potter series is "depressing", because he's an orphan. "watership down" is too depressing as well.

- "the graveyard book" is way too violent because bod's parents are murdered. also, "coraline" is too scary. so...no neil gaiman for you, special snowflake.

- moo told me that the lemony snicket series is mean, and the characteres are too snarky. when i told her that was the point - clever snark- she just rolled her eyes at me.

and on and on.

Those same idiots don't see anything wrong with dumping their kids in front of the TV to watch movies like Kick Ass, SAW, and other hugely age inappropriate movies.

------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- ------- -------
If YOU are the "exception" to what I am saying, then why does my commentary bother you so much?
I don't hate your kids, I HATE YOU!

Quote
law

Quote
drake
Fess up, which one of us is 'A.M.A.'?

Thank you.

Quote
myrna minkoff
i used to manage a bookstore, and you cannot believe the PC bullshit parents spout regarding children's books; every book is too scary, violent, racist, etc for the snowflakes. examples:

-one moo did not want to buy her son the "diary of a wimpy kid" book (even though kids LOVE that series) because one kid calls another kid an idiot.

-a moo objecting to "little house on the prairie" because she thought the way the native americans were portrayed was insulting. i've also heard the same "it's racis!t" argument against "huck finn."

- harry potter series is "depressing", because he's an orphan. "watership down" is too depressing as well.

- "the graveyard book" is way too violent because bod's parents are murdered. also, "coraline" is too scary. so...no neil gaiman for you, special snowflake.

- moo told me that the lemony snicket series is mean, and the characteres are too snarky. when i told her that was the point - clever snark- she just rolled her eyes at me.

and on and on.

I'd like to add here that James And The Giant Peach got removed from libraries because the peach is evidently a phallic symbol.

Quote
satansbitch

Quote
myrna minkoff
i used to manage a bookstore, and you cannot believe the PC bullshit parents spout regarding children's books; every book is too scary, violent, racist, etc for the snowflakes. examples:

-one moo did not want to buy her son the "diary of a wimpy kid" book (even though kids LOVE that series) because one kid calls another kid an idiot.

-a moo objecting to "little house on the prairie" because she thought the way the native americans were portrayed was insulting. i've also heard the same "it's racis!t" argument against "huck finn."

- harry potter series is "depressing", because he's an orphan. "watership down" is too depressing as well.

- "the graveyard book" is way too violent because bod's parents are murdered. also, "coraline" is too scary. so...no neil gaiman for you, special snowflake.

- moo told me that the lemony snicket series is mean, and the characteres are too snarky. when i told her that was the point - clever snark- she just rolled her eyes at me.

and on and on.

I'd like to add here that James And The Giant Peach got removed from libraries because the peach is evidently a phallic symbol.

This raise all kinds of interesting question about the shape of peach in the US...

_______________________

“I was talking about children that have not been properly house-trained. Left to their own impulses and indulged by doting or careless parents almost all children are yahoos. Loud, selfish, cruel, unaffectionate, jealous, perpetually striving for attention, empty-headed, for ever prating or if words fail them simply bawling, their voices grown huge from daily practice: the very worst company in the world. But what I dislike even more than the natural child is the affected child, the hulking oaf of seven or eight that skips heavily about with her hands dangling in front of her -- a little squirrel or bunny-rabbit -- and prattling away in a baby's voice.”


― Patrick O'Brian, The Truelove


lib'-er-ty: the freedom given to you to make the wrong decision, based on the reasoned belief that you will normally make the right one.

Quote
satansbitch
I'd like to add here that James And The Giant Peach got removed from libraries because the peach is evidently a phallic symbol.

I don't know the book, but generally round-shaped things are not considered phallic symbols. If they are going to be compared to any genitals, it's female ones. Do they even know what phallic means?

Quote
law

Quote
drake
Fess up, which one of us is 'A.M.A.'?

law, you are most awesome!

Quote
satansbitch
I'd like to add here that James And The Giant Peach got removed from libraries because the peach is evidently a phallic symbol.

Even if this ridiculous fallacy were true, SO WHAT? Doesn't half of the world have a penis? Is this something to be afraid of? Do these mommies refuse to buy cucumbers? Shy away from summer squash? Don't even start with geoducks! Childish nonsense.

..........................................................................................................................................................
"we three found joy in the belly while filling out the police report..." --myrna minkoff

Quote
drake

Quote
law

Quote
drake
Fess up, which one of us is 'A.M.A.'?

law, you are most awesome!

LOL, thank you. I hate moocunts. I hate moocunts who slam classic literature because of their worthless cuntdroppings.

That Peck book was amazing. It was one of my favorite books in the entire library. I never forgot it and remember passages of it to this day and I first found it almost 25 years ago.

This reminded me of my favorite book as a child - "The Ghost In The Swing".
Also more of an 'adult' book, although pitched to kids.

I went to look for some info -

Look at the prices on this!

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0811477525/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used

Wow.

Really good book, if you can find a copy of it ~

A summary of James and the Giant Peach according to bannedbooks.world.edu:

James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl tells the story of four-year-old James, who lives with his loving parents in a cottage in the south of England. James’ world is turned upside down when his parents are devoured by a rhinoceros that had escaped from the London zoo and James goes to live with his two horrible aunts. For three years they physically and verbally abuse him, don’t allow him to go beyond the hill, or play with other children. Around the house James is treated as a worker and beaten for hardly any reason, improperly fed, and forced to sleep on bare floorboards in the attic.

One summer afternoon when he is crying in the bushes, James stumbles across a man who gives him a sack of magic crocodile tongues and promises that if James mixes the contents with a jug of water and ten hairs from his own head, the result will be a potion which will bring him happiness and great adventures. James trips and spills the sack onto a peach tree outside his home, which had previously never given fruit. The tree becomes enchanted and begins to blossom. James quickly befriends the insect inhabitants of the peach, who become central to the plot and James’ companions in his adventure.


The reasons it's been banned from children's libraries the world over:
Still, it has been banned for being too scary for the targeted age group, mysticism, sexual inferences, profanity, racism, references to tobacco and alcohol, and claims that it promotes disobedience, drugs, and communism.

I swear I couldn't make this stuff up on my best day.

I never read that book, but if that Moo claims its too sexual for her tard, well, I sincerely hope she doesn't have any sex at all with whatever she likes to fuck while her crotchmaggot is under the same roof.

Rhinos do NOT eat people!


Or is that how we got the game "Hungry Hungry Hippo"?

I just edited my review to make it a lot more scathing, and then Amazon deleted it, those fuckers. The book is really, really good. It doesn't deserve anything less than a 5-star review, ergo this shitkicking moocunt deserves a good reaming. Pisses me off, when someone mistreats good literature.

Well, I wouldn't have but is past Roald Dahl to slip a few innuendos into his work...he didn't write only for children. Take a closer look at Maurice Sendak, too.

----------
michaela

"A child will make two dishes at an entertainment for friends, and when the family dines alone, the fore or hind quarter will make a reasonable dish, and seasoned with a little pepper or salt, will be very good boiled on the fourth day, especially in winter." -Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal

Ugh, I hate it when parents get up in arms because they don't want their kid to see/read something. Don't want them to? Fine. But let other people make their own decisions.

And yep, Roald Dahl wrote some really dark stuff, even in his kids' books. His writing for adults is even darker, with a lot of similarities to Poe. And it's excellent. Read his memoirs and you'll see why so many of his books have tyrannical adults/authority figures.

Kids don't need vastly inappropriate movies and books, of course. Parents need to know what their kids are reading/watching. But a lot of the complaints about things being too scary/too mature/too whatever are about books that are actually not written for young children. Harry Potter, Flight, The Hunger Games...these are written for teens. J.K. Rowling actually told parents of younger kids to piss off, because their children are not her target audience.

I'll bet a week's wages that moomoo got butthurt and lowed about being called out and that's why Amazon removed the review.