"High-quality literature" seems like a dangerously subjective phrase to use for a strong argument. Does profane language and sexual insinuation make a text less quality? Many people would argue that the strength of literature lies in the covert and latent content of the text. Books that we can study over and over, that require us to think critically about its literary techniques and qualities are the ones which we should be studying. Some of these books will have more "inappropriate" material on the surface than others. But at some level, the actual content of the text will be interpreted however the reader would like, and the material considered taboo by the censor supporters will inevitably transpire in every child's life. So why deprive them of the great works of Vonnegut and Morrison? You're only hurting them in the long run.

I can understand where these overprotective parents are coming from... they must believe that if their kids study literature portraying for instance a raping murdering drug addict it will plant a seed in the teenagers mind which will result in the thought that since they are studying this in school, it is ok to be a raping murderering drug addict. The key element these parents are missing is that the class must be structured in a way which there can be an analytical dialogue about the actions in which the students will understand that this rapist drug addict is in the severe wrong. Looking at this issue from the parents point of view could seem like the literature can only introduce negative ideas, but they are missing the point Lionel stated about dealing with real world situations. You must recognize a problem before you can overcome it. Maybe these parents are missing this part.

This is regarding the Chick Lit posting:

Are we really already in a "post-feminist" age, even though the work of an era is still under way? Or does this term simply justify belittling the everyday perceptions of women and their work? That sounds more like "pre-feminist" to me. Chick lit is hardly a liberating phrase, and as far as I have seen, the degrading word "Chick" has not been reclaimed as the word "queer" has. Can we now call feminist theory "chick theory?" I don't think so; my wife would kill me.

That said, I like the material that the course covers, and it does display some of the synthesis that Scholes prescribed. However, the title of the course is horrible: "Women in the Literary Imagination." Yaaawwwnnn. Also, I wish women's studies programs, including those at UVM, would do more to attract male students. Classes full of women, while rewarding and revealing to those in attendance, are largely preaching to the choir. Feminism is not, and should not be the exclusive domain of women. It's about simple equality and courses like this should strive to be more inclusive. Equality will only be obtained when both sides are at the table. This is undoubtedly an uphill struggle, since enticing men to come to WS classes is unlikely. Especially when they're called "Women in the Literary Imagination." I'm a liberal, literate male feminist and even I would pass over that one in the annual course listings.

On second thought, maybe chick lit isn't such a bad name after all. It may be our only hope.

So what is the point of education--to educate students about the world around them, its present and past, or is it to protect them from dirty words and frightening ideas? It is the job of literature to present life in all its possibilities, and out here in the real world people have sex, curse, take the Lord's name in vain and use racial epithets, as horrifying as it may be to the good people of Stepford. I'm not so old that I don't remember my childhood, and one wonders if they have any inkling of who their children even are, how they think, what they're doing when they're not being aggressively shielded. The idea that 12th graders, some eligible to vote, to be tried as adults and drafted should be denied Slaughterhouse Five because it takes the Lord's name in vain, or The Awakening because "orgasm and suicide are two major topics" is nothing less than absurd.

I agree with Meg, especially on the second half of her comment. Students need to be able to read these pieces of literature with the understanding that people from any certain time frame may have biases towards others (such as the use of the n-word in at least one of the books mentioned). The whole idea of censoring books because of their "vulgar" vocabulary threatens a change upon the literary canon for high schoolers.

I think that when you're using these books it depends on the age and maturity of the readers(teacher discretion) Looking back to high school, I know that most of the students reading the material listed would crack up and not take the material seriously. I think that the parents raise a good point about the vulgarity in text, but they also need to take into consideration the time and places some works were written. As a teacher, I think these types of literature are important enough to be used in high school. One way to get around the embarassement of reading this sort of thing is to foreworn the readers and talk about why it's written with that particular sort of vocabulary- 20th century writing is not the only writing containing "swears". Also, if a teacher is going to use this material, give a heads up to the parents of the students.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)