Now, conclusion #1 is what people are upset about, I know. This lobby represents the sort of people who don't want kids to have any sort of sexual education at all, because ignorant and pregnant at 14 is what god wants for sinner girls. But conclusion #2 is a lot more interesting to me. I'm thinking that, other than the Shakespeare plays and a few other notable exceptions from the HS required reading list, most of what I remember is the sex scenes, which means to me that in general, there wasn't a lot else to get excited about in the Lit'rachure.
To be fair, I also had a teacher one year who was very big on the idea of the Christ Figure, so, in addition to the nature of the deviant sex acts in each book, I could probably also tell you who the Christ Figure was. But really, except for Shakespeare, which I really liked for some reason, that's about it.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 11:03 pm (UTC)Hell, the sex bits were why I read Brave New World. In fact the first time I read it, I read the sex bits first and skipped over the other stuff.
Then again, I also took literature classes as electives in high school. I took a lot of Victorian literature, so that's not so sex-intensive, even though it sure wants to be. Science Fiction is where we scored most of the sex.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 11:54 pm (UTC)Of course, they weren't required reading, just for fun, but they were...formative
no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 12:13 am (UTC)