Literature should be loved and appreciated for what it is, not plastered over w/ideologies currently in vogue.
i remember hearing (although i don't know if it is true) that shakespeare wrote his portrayal of the evil Richard III in part to curry favor with the House of Tudor. if this claim is accurate, there were propogandistic as well as literary motives at work when shakespeare wrote.
"Literature should be loved and appreciated for what it is, not plastered over w/ideologies currently in vogue."
Acting as a hypocritical adovate of another side, would it be the case that at SCEGGS studying literatures for what they are belong to lower forms' English syllaba i.e. their equivalents of sophomore or junior year, while analysing with "race, class, Marxist angles" is an "advanced level topical study" just because this is what university level English courses are like? In otehr words, studying literarures for what they are is considered elementary stuff and once you get to senior English you study garbage like such? [Shrugs shoulders]
This is what my old high school did when I was a student there. In the accelerate classes junior students in such classes would have already finished senior materials at the end of their junior school, so what are they to learn in their senior year? At senior year for such classes the school put English into specialist studies with things like "Marxist analysis of literatures" along with other legitimate studies such as English language history and general analysis of Shakespeare (individual plays were studied at sophomore and junior years, so this would be an extension of such studies).
I dn't like the Marxist "analyses" either, but perhaps they were thinking this is "advanced materials".