“Inherit the Wind” was a famous fictionalized account of the Scope’s Monkey Trial of the early twentieth century. It centered on a young school teacher who was arrested and put on trial for teaching the theory of evolution in the Bible Belt where laws had been passed to forbid it.
Dr. Schantz has managed to swap out transgender orthodoxy for fundamentalist creationism in his story and crafted a courtroom drama that captures all of the nuances of our present-day retreat from reality that calls sexually mutilating adolescents, “gender-affirming therapy” and allows grade school teachers to conspire with social workers to perform these procedures on minors despite parents’ horrified resistance. A high school biology teacher is accused of teaching the biological facts of human sexuality and this throws him in conflict with a state law that forbids a teacher from challenging a student’s “selected gender identity.”
For those familiar with the movie version of “Inherit the Wind,” some of the plot twists will reappear in a new analog. But this isn’t a rehash of the old story. This is a very in-depth look at the illogic and fallacies of the transgender narrative and the way different parts of the government, the medical profession, media and academia pander to the delusions of confused children and frighten their parents into allowing terrible things to be done to their children.
The story is inhabited by a cast of characters that interlock at multiple points. Small town politics and society mesh with national political figures who have their own agendas but seize upon the trial as the perfect battlefield to win a victory for their side. Both sides are portrayed believably. The woke activists aren’t just straw men but sound quite close to what their real counterparts sound like in news clips. The details of the trial sound extremely close to what the transcript of a trial would consist of.
So, what did I think of the story? I think the story takes a while to get going. There is a set-up needed to get all the pieces in position for the trial. During this period the reader will have to be patient. Once the trial gets going the story finds its stride and becomes a courtroom drama. And I found the ending satisfying without being overdone. As with its predecessor it doesn’t attempt to write a conclusion to the clash going on in the story but rather capture the flavor of the two opposing sides and show how each side attempts to paint itself and its opponents using the weapons that each prefers. The Left fixates on emotions and idealism while the Right points to logic and reality.
Who is this book for? Well, first off, people of the woke persuasion will not be amused. Despite being reasonably accurate in his portrayal of the woke side they don’t come off as sympathetic characters. So, this leaves moderates and people on the Right. Also, this book is a courtroom drama and folks who read these are its intended audience. Personally, I liked the book. I liked the defense attorney and I despised the prosecutor. This made the courtroom battle satisfying for me. But you’ll have to make up your mind based on what I’ve described whether this is your kind of story.
A similar study could be made of “Renewable Energy” vs hydrocarbons. Chemistry/Physics/Astronomy teachers put on trial (civil or criminal) for challenging the fallacy of Wind/Solar power. Not to mention trying to disseminate the truth about Nuclear power. The Gaia-ist heads would start exploding on page 3!
The science is settled!