Banana Jr. 6000

Cross Examination Of Defendant

“Murder In The Burnings”, my retelling of Crankshaft‘s burnings plot, continues. Today, the defendant is on the witness stand. You can read all previous installments under the Burnings tag.

PROSECUTOR: Please state your full name and current profession.

LES: I am Les Moore, award-winning writer and high school teacher.

PROSECUTOR: In that order, huh?

CROSS EXAMINATION

PROSECUTOR: Mr. Moore, you taught the book Fahrenheit 451 to your American Literature class, against school board recommendations, and against instructions from your own principal. Is that correct?

LES: Yes, sir.

PROSECUTOR: Why did you decide to teach Fahrenheit 451 to your class?

LES: As I said to my wife, Cayla, it seems to me that if the students are old enough to have active shooter drills, they’re old enough to read whatever they want.

PROSECUTOR: Did any other teachers also teach Fahrenheit 451 that semester?

LES: No, just me.

PROSECUTOR: So no other classes took part in this?

LES: No.

PROSECUTOR: Not even at any other schools?

LES: No, not that I know of.

PROSECUTOR: What did your students think of Fahrenheit 451?

LES: They were pretty excited about it. The “forbidden fruit” angle, I guess.

PROSECUTOR: Why would anyone oppose Fahrenheit 451? It doesn’t have any violent or sexual content, or anything like that. It’s a pretty standard book for high school literature. I read it myself in high school.

LES: I don’t know. Some people are just closed-minded, I guess.

PROSECUTOR: Your principal Nate Green testified that you taught Fahrenheit 451 without his permission or approval. Did anyone else ever express any concerns about the content of this book?

LES: No.

PROSECUTOR: Did the school board ever talk to you about your decision, either directly or indirectly?

LES: Nate told me he met with the board, but nothing came of it.

PROSECUTOR: Did any parents talk to you about it?

LES: Nope. I never heard a word. It turned out everyone was on board with my courageous decision.

PROSECUTOR: Well, that’s surprising, Mr. Moore. Because Skip Rawlings of the Centerville Sentinel testified that he received an email from the protestors that said there were quote, “things in the book they didn’t want their kids to see.” But you just said you were the only teacher who taught this book. Which means, the only people whose kids would ever see what was in Fahrenheit 451, were the parents of your students. So I will ask you again; did any parent of your students ever express any concerns to you about your decision to teach Fahrenheit 451? I remind you, Mr. Moore, you are under oath.

LES: Um, no.

PROSECUTOR: I would like to remind the jury of police officer Leo Harshman’s testimony. The police detained several protestors fleeing from the Village Booksmith. Those protestors turned out to be Mr. Moore’s own students, in a misguided prank. After that, the police had many conversations with these same parents. No parent of any of Mr. Moore’s students was ever a person of interest in this case.

LES: Well, these protestors must have come from somewhere.

PROSECUTOR: Correct, Mr. Moore, and I will soon show this court exactly where they came from. Now, after the Booksmellers fire, and the erroneous newspaper story that it may have been an attack on the content of Fahrenheit 451 itself, what happened next?

LES: Lillian McKenzie called me, and offered to take over the distribution of Fahrenheit 451.

PROSECUTOR: And you accepted?

LES: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: Lillian McKenzie testified that she was afraid to do this for you. Did you ever consider another way of distributing the books, so she wouldn’t be at risk? Such as, having your students acquire the book online? Or, simply teaching a different book?

LES: No, she seemed fine with it at the time.

PROSECUTOR: And when did this happen, exactly?

LES: We moved the books on Sunday.

PROSECUTOR: The 15th?

LES: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: The day before the Village Booksmith fire. Who physically moved the books there?

LES: Me, Lillian, the twin girls who work at her store, my friend Pete, and his fiancee Mindy.

PROSECUTOR: That’s Lillian McKenzie, Amelia and Emily Matthews, Pete Roberts-Reynolds, and Mindy Murdoch. Anyone else?

LES: No.

PROSECUTOR: When did you tell your students the new location to pick up the books?

LES: That Monday, at school.

PROSECUTOR: The 16th?

LES: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: And the Village Booksmith fire was that night. Other than your students, yourself, Lillian McKenzie, and the people who helped you move the books, who knew the copies of Fahrenheit 451 were at the Village Booksmith?

LES: Um. Well, my wife, I guess. she was there when I took Lillian’s call.

PROSECUTOR: I mean, who knew the books were at Lillian’s store, and would have lit the store on fire because of that?

LES: Umm….

PROSECUTOR: Your whole reason for doing this convoluted book drop was to circumvent the school board’s “recommended reading” list. Nate Green testified that you were exploiting a loophole in this list, by not ordering the book from the school system. He said he informed you this went against school board policy. Which raises the bar for these protestors even higher. We’ve been looking for a perpetrator who not only was so offended by Fahrenheit 451 they committed arson at two different bookstores. And, who learned the new location of the books within a day of you moving them there, when you had an incentive to keep this location secret. And, who never so much as spoke to anyone about their concerns.

LES: Well, maybe the police could do their jobs and find these protestors.

PROSECUTOR: I think the police did their jobs just fine when they announced criminal charges against you. Because the arsonist was you, the whole time.

LES: So who are these protestors then?

PROSECUTOR: There never were any protestors.

Synesthesia II

Don’t forget to vote in the 2024 Crankshaft awards! See a list of nominees here. Vote here.

It’s time for another visit to Tom Batiuk’s wacky blog!

In Match To Flame 221, we get the continuation of Batiuk’s trip to North Carolina. During this trip, he discovered he has synesthesia, but didn’t realize this was the only interesting thing that happened to him. Nor did he care enough to learn that the condition had a name.

Do Explain The Joke

This past week of Crankshaft was so bad, I had to write two posts about it. The first post was here. This second one will focus on the alleged joke-writing. Beware, the comedy disconnects are everywhere.

A comedy disconnect happens when a writer sacrifices reality and ideas in pursuit of a laugh. Tom Batiuk doesn’t really sacrifice reality and ideas; he never introduces them in the first place. We’ll soon see how.

Blog Spox Reax: Batx Work Sux

A “Sticks Nix Hick Pix” reference? That’s the lowest form of humor…
Billy The Skink

Hey, I do my best, man. 😏

If my ongoing TBTropes series of posts was a college course, this week’s Crankshaft could be the final exam. Because this week, Tom Batiuk is putting on a master class of his worst qualities as a writer. I’ve already written a longer explanation for each of these, so I’ll be brief in recounting them.

Class, let’s start the review:

Retconning. Retroactive continuity is not unique to Tom Batiuk. Nor is it a bad thing in principle. But Batiuk abuses the privilege. He constantly reinvents past events in the Funkyverse to make them even darker, more favorable to his current preferred characters, or for unclear reasons.

Emily’s first visit to the Centerville Sentinel started on November 18, 2024, with the explanation that she was there to do a class assignment. The week ended with Emily saying a nice goodbye to Skip, and announcing she got an A+ in the class. Okay, fine. It was a week of dreadful jokes, but harmless enough to escape this blog’s notice. Until now.

“Who Art Thy Daddy?”, Sayeth Paul To The Galatians, While Splitting Aces

Tom Batiuk’s latest blog post Match To Flame 219 starts with one of the most bizarre sentences I’ve ever read.

It was another one of those road to Damascus–double down–who’s your daddy moments.

I have so many questions about this. What life event could possibly be described by all three of these cliches at the same time, especially when the first two contradict each other? A “road to Damascus” is a sudden, major change in one’s beliefs. To “double down” is to increase your commitment to something you’re already doing. So, it’s one of those “change while emphatically not changing” moments in life? And how often does this happen to Tom Batiuk? It must be a lot, because he introduces it with the phrase “it was another one of those” moments. As if he’s rolling his eyes from the sheer boredom of it all.

I want to rework George Carlin’s “fine and dandy” bit to be about these three phrases instead. “I never use the phrase ‘road to Damascus–double down–who’s your daddy moments.’ Why? Because I’m never all three of those things at the same time! Sometimes, I am indeed on the road to Damascus. Just the other day, I was flying from New York to change planes in Dubai. But I never double down during those trips! In fact, I’m pretty sure blackjack is illegal in Muslim countries. And I never use the phrase ‘who’s your daddy?’ Unless I find a lost little girl at the park, and I’m trying to find her parents. Then I might ask, ‘who’s your daddy?'”