The (one) problem with being sensitive to parents' wishes about what their children will be "forced" by their school to read is that so many viewpoints abound that there is nothing that somebody somewhere doesn't find objectionable. Where then are Authorities to find material for a reading list which is offensive to no one and yet still contains literature? (Isn't that just another roundabout metaphor for "Politics as usual"?)

There used to be a column in my Sunday paper's literary section which asked well-known writers a series of questions. One of those questions was:

What books shoudl be made compulsory reading?

The writers were nearly all unanimous in their declaration that No books shoudl be made compulsory!

I agree with this. Whereas I quite enjoyed a selection of the books I read at school until I was about 15 I swear I will never look at Wuthering Heights or Castle Rackrent again. Same goes for a lot of the Shakespearean plays but they were a bit dull anyway.

A continuous assessment on a selection of recommended reading books would have whet my appetite for more.

Now I believe that the next point was what makes recommended or acceptable reading? Well, up until not so long ago even the recommended reading books in this part of the world were being fiercely doctored and censored by ignorant parents who were blaming them for their daughters' pregnancies (of course it had nothing to do with that randy farmer who had just drunk ten pints). But I digress....

People will find fault with every sort of book that's written - even the most intentionally harmless novels are seen as debasing or sexist or racist or sectarian or whatever. No book is acceptable to everyone. That's been pointed out quite a lot on this very forum using Mark Twain as an example.

I like Twain and his humour and his very observant views and deft handling of the tough and often violent and lawless place that was the mississipi mid-west in the latter part of the 19th century. We don't like the 'n'-word and avoid it these days as it is unacceptable, unnecessary and 'politically incorrect' (a term I particularly despise). However, in Twain's time it was common, as were slavery, lynchings, misogyny and bigotry and he includes it in his writing to reflect the contemporary languge of the day even if he did not use it himself or agree with it. Jim Conrad and his several books on the subjects of slavery, piratry and hard-living on the high seas is another example.

I've been dying to say it for ages but Eric Blair (better known as George Orwell) was a policeman in Burma for several years. He eventually quit as he could not endure the racism and hatred inflicted by the East India Company on the natives. Blair was completely anti-racist and he describes his feelings (and those of the bigots) in the excellent Burma days. Not a lot of racist language in his text but the feeling you get when you read the conceited dialogue of the British officers is akin to hearing the worst racist slurs. It made my spine bristle, anyways. Blair managed to convey these emotions to paper without ever giving the impression that they were his own. That is true genius. I digress again....

Recommended reading material shoudl contain a broad range of widely read material from various ethnic writers. Since they are well-read then they are acceptable to the masses. Since they are from different ethnic groups it will encourage learning and understanding of different ethnic groups, cultures and backgrounds. And, if they are based on wide-ranging issues (either contemporary or historical) then they will inspire debate. And that is good.

That's my rant for this month!! Boy it felt good!