Rod Liddle versus the Literal-Minded
The inability to recognise a joke is becoming a defining feature of our political age.
It would be far better for society if we were to execute the literal-minded. We could do it discreetly, under cover of night, so as not to upset their relatives. Instead of scouring social media for potentially offensive posts, the police could be enlisted to identify anyone who takes an obvious joke at face value. No trial. No appeal. Just toss them into a volcano and be done with it.
Might it be possible that anyone could read these words and assume that I meant it? You would be surprised. It was tremendously sad to hear of Rod Liddle’s untimely death last week, but it was some consolation to know that he would have relished all the unhinged reactions on Bluesky from its resident hobgoblins. Many of his old articles were dredged up as evidence of his wrongthink, and obviously satirical lines were quoted as though they were admissions of guilt.
How the ghouls celebrated and jeered, all the while exposing to the world the lie that they were ever on the side of compassion and progress. Titania McGrath even weighed in for the Spectator (you can read her thoughts here). Even many on the right were apparently delighted with Rod’s passing because of what they perceived to be his unpardonable sins. Literal-mindedness is a disease that transcends political boundaries.
The chief accusation – invariably posted underneath the many tributes from Rod’s friends, colleagues and admirers – was that he was a ‘nonce’ who had admitted that he ‘wanted to shag schoolkids’. And so, with due exhaustion and contempt, I feel obliged to explain that this is not even remotely true.
I suppose we had better take a look at the passage in question from Rod’s 2012 article about the story of a maths teacher who had run off to France with one of his charges.
‘…the one thing stopping me from being a teacher was that I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids. It seemed to me virtually impossible not to, and I was convinced that I’d be right in there, on day one. We’re talking secondary school level here, by the way – and even then I don’t think I’d have dabbled much below year ten, as it is now called. I just thought we ought to clear that up early on.’
It would take amoeba-level stupidity to assume that this was in any way serious. Such people would require 24-hour care in order to accomplish the most basic of quotidian tasks: tying shoelaces, brushing teeth, remembering to eat. And yet a surprisingly large number of people apparently cannot distinguish between a provocative and satirical article and an authentic statement of belief. The congenitally literal-minded do indeed live among us, and they are legion.
Of course, many of those citing Rod’s article as a confession of noncehood were doing so wilfully. In a sense, these people are even more deserving of the volcano treatment. It should be straightforward enough to admit that one finds Rod’s writing to be crass, offensive, or just downright unfunny. If Rod’s detractors believe that it is improper to make jokes about child abuse, they ought to say so. But to pretend that there had been no attempt at humour in order to score points against a dead opponent is about as low as it gets…
— To continue reading this article, please consider becoming a paid subscriber —
