The phrases "too corporeal, too colored…too queer" all repeat a key word —too. "Too" within this context is not additional (I am going to the park too), but implies as distance from a socially and violently constructed norm. A norm of common-sense that links works that are just the right amount of corporeal, colored and queer to succeed (sell) in the knowledge market economy. Like Goldilocks and the porridge, a dominate structure based on the standpoint of greed and the struggle for power is creating the standards of identity through marginalizing anything(one) that does not fit just right.

Reading the short story of Goldilocks reveals how she literally trespassed into the house of bears and got angry about how the entire structure of the house did not cater to her privilege as a white girl. On this quest to affirm her superiority over the bears (who were out at the time), she breaks their custom-made furniture for it was too big, placed her white tongue in their homemade food (theory) and declared it too hot as well as messed up their "neatly" made beds by laying in them (with her entire outfit after walking through a forest) for the bed was too soft. Again, we see the too repeated. When Goldilocks woke up, she had the audacity to run out the house scared even though she was the one who committed the offense. Whiteness works to confuse the perpetrator as the victim; as a result, the new victims ("The Bears") become the aggressors even though they were just returning home. To further cement this perspective, the name of the story only includes the name of one who committed the crime through centering Whiteness: The Story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears.

I wonder if "Bears" is another term named by Goldilocks that is too just right to describe how it was her, not the other living creatures, that was in danger. Another example, of what Tuck & Yang referred to as "settler moves to innocence" (Tuck & Yang, 2012).