"I've never let my school interfere with my education." -Mark Twain

Now that that overused but still lovely quote is out of the way...

Genre fiction isn't less "worthy," it's simply different. It also depends on what qualifies as "worthy" I suppose. The worthiness of books required for a school's curriculum really depends on what the reader gets out of it, which might not be much depending on how it's taught. It depends. While genre fiction contains different information that literary fiction, that is not to say the same morals can't be obtained from both.

Is there a difference between literary and pop/comm/gen fiction? Mosdef. Literary fiction probably holds more morals, themes, and is written more eloquently. Genre fiction can be less tasteful and definitely less developed. I'm not sure there's a clean boundary between the two fiction types, though. I'm still trying to come up with an example, but I'm sure there are works out there that toe the lit/gen fiction line.

As for what constitutes "good," who knows. There's a panel of people out there who deem books "worthy" of lists (Best Books of 2011, etc), but again, it's subjective.

What I am sure of is that I don't agree with the theory of "Readicide." Firstly, the wordplay doesn't work at all. Secondly, just because someone doesn't like books that are taught in school does not mean that will make him or her hate reading outside of it. I'm not speaking for everyone, but that's true for me at least. Just because I could barely get through Grendel doesn't mean I'm never going to pick up a book again. There are so many out there that are different. It's like if the first time you tried an apple it was rotten. Yeah, maybe you'll have a slight resentment against them, but to think that every apple in the world will be like that when you go to eat it is ri-dic-u-lous.



Q: Are you good with swapping out Of Mice and Men for Twilight, for example?

A: I am not good with swapping anything out for Twilight, for example.

As for "real world" preparation, to sound redundant, it depends. It depends on your job whether or not genre fiction will be helpful in any way. I agree with Melissa Thomas that fantasy should be greater valued. Fantasy lets us escape (I know, I know, we've all heard that before) but seriously. Reading historical nonfiction will give you an escape but unless you're reading a creatively written work or really love nonfiction, you'll probably be bored to death.

Laura Miller says "There's that unwritten schism that literary writers get all the awards and commericals writers get all the success." I find this true, especially among recent bestsellers like, forgive me for mentioning it again, Twilight (sorry, Twi-hards). If it's popular and accessible, authors will churn books out like butter and readers will devour it like hungry, tasteless savages. Then proceed to build a franchise based on fluff and easy, simply-written reads.

Applewapples and Oranges

Several challenges would appear to a filmmaker trying to recreate Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange. Of course, that hasn't stopped Stanley Kubrick from doing so in 1971 nonetheless.
While I haven't seen the film itself, I imagine trying to incorporate the mix of Russian and Cockney used in the novel would prove a bit of a problem on the screen since it would lack context clues. Some elements in the  novel are also a bit violent and extremely disturbing, so content may also have to be edited out or reagrranged. I've seen only a short clip of the film and it was actually funny. It seems like it might
be one of those movies that are easier understood than the book. Humor just doesn't always
translate the same, and comparing books and movies is difficult.
There are several scenes that are key to the soul of the novel that need to remain in any
adaptation of it. I haven't gotten very far, but from what I've seen, an adaptation wouldn't
be too "horrorshow" without these scenes:

The first fightWhen we are first introduced to Alex and his "droogs," Pete, Georgie, and Dim, they are 15 years
young and wreaking havoc in the town. They are stripping down a full grown-man and threatening
him, beating him up. They get away from the police by stealing his money and buying drinks
for old ladies who praise them for it and tell the police they were good and there all night.
If this scene was left out, the viewer would miss the manipulative, disturbingly violent
aspect of these boys.

The HOMEAlex and the boys manipulate a couple living in a home and beat and knife the husband and
bind and rape the wife. If that's not messed up, I don't know what is. If that was left out,
it could be assumed that they are simply delinquents looking for a bit of fun. They're not.
The record store
Alex goes to pick up a new record and picks up two girls, no older than ten. He brings them
back to his house where his always absent "rabbitting" parents are still absent. He takes
them into his room and rapes them. I'm only on chapter four.

Three parts to cut?No specific insignificant parts come to mind. There are little details that I think could
be done without though.

-Cut back on the language
It's distracting to read and I couldn't even imagine watching a whole film like that (then
again, it may be like that and I just don't know)

-Cut out the whimsical crap
Dim is dim. This is reiterated no less than five times in the first few chapters. He's dumb,
I GET IT. And so would the audience.

-Alex cutting class
It's just not that important that here he is, feiging a headache. And there he goes, making
toast. Now maybe he'll get some music. Not essential.