Read the Book Already

Here are some literary references people are always screwing up that annoy me.

Lolita
Synonymous with a sexy juvenile, or a non-juvenile who tries to look young in a sexy way--like a Catholic school girl. I can see how you might confuse that with the child of the novel who was abducted, sexually abused, stalked, raped, emotionally destroyed, and ultimately rejected by everyone for her "sin" of being the target of a paedophile. No really. It's practically the same thing.

The Great Gatsby
Just because it took place in the 1920s does NOT make it Gatsby-esque. Unless someone dies and/or there is a whole lot of angst, desperation, and deception, your party does not have a Gatsby theme. On second thought, maybe people DO get it right.

Romeo and Juliet
Even Shakespeare didn't mean for it to be a love story--he has Romeo threatening to kill himself because he was rejected by some other chick in the opening scene. They're a couple of stupid kids who do some stupid things and die. It's really not very romantic at all.

Anything to do with Lovecraft
Just because it is scary, that does not make it just like something he'd write. Lovecraft's distinct style made use (to the point of irritation IMHO) of our fear of the unknown, and his monsters are largely unseen. So to that critic who described Saw as being full of "Lovecraftian terror"--no. Just no. The first hour of Signs? Yes. The first Alien movie? Dead on. Friday the 13th? Um, no.

The Story of David and Bathsheba and also Mary Magdalene
Poor Bathy. Poor Mary. Both are branded as seductresses or whores. Neither actually were. It was hardly Bathsheba's fault that King David was a peeping Tom and saw her taking a bath. People got to bathe. And I seriously doubt she wanted him to murder her husband. And Mary? Just some chick. No evidence whatsoever that she was a prostitute. Another fallacy brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Catholic church.