Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Feb 21, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: newbery medal controversy: the power of "scrotum"
> > Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 12:48:58 -0600
> > From: Rhonda Nicol <rmnicol at ilstu.edu>
> > Reply-To: rmnicol at ilstu.edu
> > To: ENGDEP-L at LISTSERV.ilstu.edu
> > References: <45DA3D09.80101 at ilstu.edu>
> >
> > I love this passage from the NYT article:
> >
> > Ms. Nilsson, reached at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango, Colo.,
> > said she had heard from dozens of librarians who agreed with her
> > stance.
> > “I don’t want to start an issue about censorship,” she said. “But you
> > won’t find men’s genitalia in quality literature.”
> >
> > Um, okay. I didn't know that was a defining characteristic of
> > "quality
> > literature." Good to know
>
> But, of course, it was a dog's scrotum. So there was never any
> question of men's genitalia in this book.
>
> No genitalia in quality literature? Really, some of the most ardent
> defenders of the canon haven't read a word of it, have they? They
> should all be forced to listen to a dramatic reading of The
> Canterbury Tales.
There is a couple (both high-school teachers) in a near-by town who some years ago wrote letters to the local paper against teaching Chaucer in English classes because he was a dirty-old man. I haven't seen any of their letters lately but for about 10 years every month or so they provided great entertainment. Wojtek would love them -- they confirm all of the myths he believes in.
Carrol
P.S. Incidentally, Rhonda Nicol in the post fwd was being facetious, in case that wasn't clear.