Taking Offence

Actor and author Tom Hanks has weighed in on the recent trend of editing classics and other long-published works for newer, more sensitive audiences.

"Well, I'm of the opinion that we're all grown-ups here," Hanks was quoted as saying. "And we understand the time and the place and when these things were written. And it's not very hard at all to say: that doesn't quite fly right now, does it?

Many, I'm sure. share Hanks' opinion. As adults we should know how to control ourselves whenever we encounter something that offends our sensibilities. Sexist portrayals of women, racist depictions of minorities and such in art and literature should be read within the context of their eras. Content that might be triggering to readers ... that should be discussed separately.

"Let's have faith in our own sensibilities here, instead of having somebody decide what we may or may not be offended by," he added. "Let me decide what I am offended by and not offended by."

Trouble comes when someone decides they are offended by something in a book and are upset when others don't feel the same, so they set out to change that. This is partly behind the movement to ban books – that's what it is – in the US and the horsepower on that bandwagon has been so impressive, others have hitched their carriages to it.

Even with all the details emerging from reports on the issue, the findings of The Washington Post still astounds. The Post analysed a set of challenges to books filed in "the 2021-2022 school year with the 153 school districts that Tasslyn Magnusson, a researcher employed by free expression advocacy group PEN America, tracked as receiving formal requests to remove books last school year." They found that...

Nearly half of filings — 43 percent — targeted titles with LGBTQ characters or themes, while 36 percent targeted titles featuring characters of color or dealing with issues of race and racism. The top reason people challenged books was “sexual” content; 61 percent of challenges referenced this concern.

The paper also revealed that "The majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people."

Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers — but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings.

Ye g*ds. Ninety-two challenges by one person?

The rationale for many of the objections are the usual: they don't want young people reading about sex or LGBTQ lives and issues, these books normalise LGBTQ, and so on. Better to learn about all that from the likes of Fox and Moms for Liberty, right?

Also mind-blowing is the objection filed by a parent over The Hill We Climb, an edition of the poem by American National Youth Poet Laureate Amanda Gorman, which was read aloud at the inauguration of President Joe Biden. Why? "Cause confusion and indoctrinate students," the complainant wrote. On two pages of the book: "Is not educational and have indirectly [sic] hate messages."

C'mon now, a poem from a National Youth Poet Laureate is "not educational" and has "hate messages"? Also, the complainant seemed to have mistakenly attributed authorship of the opem to Oprah Winfrey. That the complainant has links to groups like the Proud Boys and Moms for Liberty (HA!) and is a Ron DeSantis supporter is probably no coincidence.

Taking offence has become a pastime of sorts with certain people. Armed with the outsized influence and reach granted by social media, they set chatrooms and threads on fire, infecting the susceptible with their outrage and indignation, dampening voices trying to cool things down. So many fall for this incendiary rhetoric and BS.

It feels like more and more are giving up the ability to question, research and think critically and leaving all that to certain authority figures who would turn out to be less than authoritative than they'd like to think.