Rockwell may have been an idiot blinking Socialist, but he COULD draw!
Posted on 02/20/2006 5:01:05 PM PST by wagglebee
(AgapePress) - A school district in Maine has reaffirmed its reinstatement of a sexually explicit book several parents want removed from the local high school's curriculum. The Orono School Committee recently voted to retain the controversial novel Girl Interrupted in the ninth grade English literature class at Orono High School.
Girl Interrupted, a novel written by Susanna Kaysen, was affirmed for use in the high school curriculum over the objections of parents and local residents who take exception to the profuse profanity and sexual content in the book. Michael Heath, head of the Christian Civic League of Maine (CCLM), says this graphic work of fiction has no place in schools where impressionable young people will be exposed to it.
"It's a book about an 18-year-old," Heath explains, "who ends up in a mental asylum and has a number of conversations with mentally disturbed people -- conversations of the most graphic sort, especially sexual. The f-word [appears] 30 times in one page, and this is being given to freshmen in high school as literature. It's absolutely horrifying."
School board members argue that using Girl Interrupted in the classroom honors free speech and that prohibiting it would amount to unconstitutional censorship. However, the CCLM spokesman feels the board members are making a spurious claim when they cite First Amendment freedom as a justification for obscenity.
The Civic League's representative at the board's meeting contested that idea from the floor, Heath points out. "When one of the school board members said to not have the book in the curriculum would be the practice of censorship," he notes, "our representative objected and said, 'Look, you censor Playboy. You don't allow people to read Playboy in the schools, so that's a non-issue. You're lying.'"
The Orono school board has the responsibility to make decisions about content and does in fact make such decisions all the time, Heath contends. He feels parents and pro-family citizens in the Maine community have every right to be outraged over the school committee's decision to retain a sexually explicit novel in Orono High School's ninth-grade English literature classes.
The irony with The Wife of Bath is that she is arguably the most moral person in "The Canterbury Tales." Chaucer was most certainly poking fun at her, but he was really making fun of everyone else in society, particularly the church at that time and other powerful people in that society.
This is all very easy. It's just more of the same: Bullies pretending to be victims. I wouldn't go so far as to call it a kind of vandalism, but it smacks of power asserted by those who feel powerless, i.e. random, uninformed, overblown and self-righteous.
I suggest a course on Logic.
Try Logic 101, with an emphasis on syllogism.
You attempted to justify inclusion of this book into the school curriculum by stating that Shakespeare also used adult themes in his work.
That leap of logic could be easily used to justify inclusion of any book whatsoever. "Why, of course we should include "Teenage Oral Desires" in the school curriculum, Sheakespeare dealt with adult themes as well."
I am NOT saying that you are attempting to make that argument, and a careful reading of my posts would show that. But, it is the logical conclusion of the line of reasoning you employed.
Yeah, when I was in high school we read nothing but Troilus and Cressida, Tristan and Isolde, Romeo and Juliet...
I can see Chaucer making fun of the Wife of Bath, in a gentle and teasing way. But to an extent he seems to agree with her -- he does use her to explode the more idiotic courtly stories (like Patient Griselda) and to beat the slimy Pardoner over the head . . .
If you want to read a book that gives tremendous insight into the way that medieval and Renaissance man viewed the cosmos and man's place in it (it isn't exactly what you would expect), read C.S. Lewis's The Discarded Image. Don't know how familiar you are with Lewis beyond his fiction (esp. Narnia) and his Christian apologetics, but his day job was as a tutor and later professor of medieval and Renaissance literature at Oxford and later "the other university". He knows his stuff - and he draws all the threads together to show how we can misread early literature if we don't understand the authors' point of view. (I'm slogging through his volume of the Oxford History of English Literature right now - he did the 16th century (excluding drama). He makes it very interesting - there's just a lot to cover.)
Rockwell may have been an idiot blinking Socialist, but he COULD draw!
We both work - it was only a temporary fix. He came to work with me and did his schoolwork in my cubicle.
I'm not so sure I agree with you. I don't think she's the most moral person in the Canterbury Tales (the knight, for example). And, he does present some members of the church who are not corrupted.
Lawrence is one of my pet peeves - I think he's overrated because of the scandal surrounding his life and work. Chatterley could have been a good book, but he takes the easy way out every time.
I never got past Portrait of the Artist with Joyce, I liked that one a lot and I'm partial to Irish writers. I did take a stab at Finnegan's Wake -- good lord, what a confusing book!
I think modern readers misunderstand Chaucer's story of Griselda - it's hard for us to swallow, but I think he uses her as an example of forebearance and patience (comparatable to Job). It's his counterpoint to the Wife.
Yes, I'm familiar with Lewis's scholarly works. His "Preface to Paradise Lost" actually helped me to get a better grip on Realism.
This is interesting, but I have to go to work. I'll check back later.
"You attempted to justify inclusion of this book into the school curriculum by stating that Shakespeare also used adult themes in his work."
I am wasting my time if you cannot see the fallacy in your argument. You need to study up on syllogisms. I am not arguing for this book to be included in the curriculum because it already is in the curriculum. Other people are arguing for it to be removed from the curriculum. The reason they want it removed is because it contains sexual content. I am saying that is not a good enough reason for me because sexual content is prevalent in literature. I sighted Shakespeare and several other examples to support this assertion. I never stated that this book should not be banned because there should be absolutely no standards placed on any literature taught in public schools. So there is absolutely nothing logical about your conclusions. You should just admit that you made a ridiculous comparison because you couldn't refute my point that the mere presence of sexual content is not a reason to exclude a book from being taught.
I kind of figured that you must have had a different edition. It is only a little more than twice as long as Catcher though, possibly not even that much.
I am wasting my time if you do not bother to read the last sentence in my post.
I specifically stated that I am not saying that you are reaching the conclusion. I said that the conclusion is inevitable from the faulty logic you employed.
I think one important point is that the tales WERE "stories" - i.e. not intended to be true. And Griselda is of course an archetype (but she STILL drives me nuts!)
State employees always know what is best for children.
My argument: Schools should not ban a book because it contains sexual content.
Argument you assigned to me: Schools should not ban a book if it contains sexual content.
Is that clear enough for you?
Do you have kids?
Are kids a requirement these days?
For the record, the book isn't that sexually explicit. Mostly bad words.
However, given that the parents didn't want their kids reading the bad words, wouldn't it have been an easier path for them to approach the teacher and say, "Is there an alternate book our kids can read?"
I had to teach "Song of Solomon" the first year I was teaching, and talk about a HORRIBLE book.
I opted out of teaching it the next semester, and went for "Frankenstein" instead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.