I would not say that Genre Fiction is less worthy than Literary Fiction, but there certainly is a difference between the two. Yes, both Genre Fiction and Literary Fiction can have the same themes and motifs, but the difference is that these themes and symbols are delivered in a different way. Literary Fiction tends to have more depth and takes more dissection in order to understand the less apparant symbols, while in Genre Fiction, the themes are more apparant and the reader is carried by a faster, plot driven story, that takes little, in-depth examination. Popular books can still be great, it's just that popular works tend to be more accessable to the public, so it's less likely that the majority of readers who read for entertainment will choose a deep, "artisticly" written book, not to say that great books can't be artistic or very well written. It's just that someone looking for an entertaining book will be more stimulated by a plot driven book that doesn't hide its details. The reader is always the one who decides what good writing is. No one else.

I personally do not think that genre fiction really has its place in schools. I think that the way that literary diction is taught is the issue, not the fact that its exclusive. If there's no content in a genre fiction novel that cannot be uncovered through analytical practices that will help us in the real world, then there is really no point in teaching us that, since there isn't much to teach other than "read it."

Anyway. The way that literary fiction is taught is something that should be changed. If students are rushed, and are taught to read for test answers, then I feel that there is no point, because it's not like later on in life people will read so they can answer a test question. I like the way that I was taught to read Great Gatsby, for example. There was a deadline to finish, but it was not danger close. We were told to read at our own pace, but still dissect each chapter and try to develop an understanding of what the author was really saying, given the context of the culture that he wrote the novel in. While no one could uncover every single symbol and meaning in Great Gatsby, there was a sense of enjoyment and accomplishment to doing that. If I read the novel without any close examination, it would've been just a boring book about the 1920's. However, thanks to the way that I was encouraged to read the novel, I was able to find that the novel was much deeper than that, and I learned a new way of reading and analyzing text, which can help later in life.

I really hated the way I read Of Mice and Men though. We read it for test answers, reading only a few chapters, and then watching the movie. I feel like I missed out on a lot of good content and detail that I could've discovered if I had read the entire novel myself, rather than being guided through quickley, for test answers.
If kids are taught to read for test answers, then there's no authenticity, and the books hold little meaning to them. If people are taught to own what they read and read to find a meaning for themselves, then perhaps kids would be more enthusiastic about it.

A Clockwork Orange would be very difficult to adapt into a film. The novel is filled with so much detail, and trying to figure out the dialogue can sometimes be like trying to solve a puzzle. Filmmakers would definitely have a hard time writing the script, in a way that the dialogue stays true to the Cockney Russian dialect that young Alex speaks yet is able to be understood by an audience watching the film. Filmmakers would also struggle with the violence of the novel for a film. It would also be tough for actors to learn the accents and dialects. The first part of the novel is Alex's moloko plus (milk spiked with absinthe) induced adventures as he commits ultra-violence, and it would be very difficult to cast someone who would have to act out violent brawls and intense rape scenes, because very few actors would want such a role.

The first scene that is essential to a Clockwork Orange film would be ultra violence in part one. At the height of their rage, Alex and his droogs Pete, Dim, and Georgie break into a house in a village outside the city and rape a woman in front of his wife. As terrible as this is, this scene is very necessary because it is the most raw and coarse way to show Alex and his droogs' total disregard for people, and the recklessness of their youth. Stanley Kubrick includes this rape scene in his adaptation, and probably directed one of the most disturbing scenes in film history. This definitely gave people a visual of Alex's crave for orgiastic violence.
Another scene that should be in an adaptation is the brainwashing that Alex volunteers for in prison so that he may regain his freedom. During the brainwashing, doctors condition Alex's body to become sick and ill whenever he even has the thought of committing violence. They do this by giving him chemicals as he is forced to watch extremely violent acts while his eyes are held open by contraptions. This is very important, because it leads to Alex's inability to free will, which is very important to the title "Clockwork Orange". This is used very well in Kubrick's adaptation, and is quite disturbing, seeing the way that even a violent person like Alex is feeling tortured by being forced to watch pure violence.
The last scene that needs to be in a film is after Alex's conditioning has wared off, and he has regained the ability to commit violence with new droogs. Later Alex is thinking about starting a family, and he has been less prone to violent acts. I think this is necessary because people need to see that Alex has the potential to change without the conditioning, and that he is capable of sweetness and juice without being programmed and mechanised like a clock.

The scene that I would not include in the novel would be when Alex drugs and rapes a pair of girls that he says look no older than 10. Kubrick includes this scene in the film, but the girls are much older than 10, and consenting, so Alex doesn't rape them in his adaptation. I can't really think of a filmmaker who would include that part of the noel verbatim. I would probably change up the circumstances like Kubrick did.
I would omit most of the scenes that Alex speaks with his parents. I would include them a little bit, but not a ton. Without the audience seeing Alex's parents, I think it would help with the mysteriousness and the lack of morals that Alex has, because his parents are rarely seen. I omit the part where Alex returns to them after prison to suprise them, and finds out that someone else took his place on the family. I found that part in the novel sort of irrelivent and did little to the plot.
The last scene that I would omit would be Alex being cured and actually deciding to leave violence behind. Kubrick's adaptation does this as well, and it leaves the audience wondering what Alex is going to do with his life, and if he'll continue with violence or choose a more righteous path.

"It would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the ol' ultra-violence."