All these unpopular opinions are embarrassing because people tend to generalize their personal experience as an objective view of things.
"You can learn life lessons or symbolism or whatever from more interesting, relevant, and modern books. Including graphic novels"
Who reads the classic for life lessons? They're not self help books. Symbolism? As if that's the totality of it. "Whatever" is hilarious.
"from more interesting, relevant, and modern books. Including graphic novels"
I'm always on team read what pleases you, I read comics as much as old books, but again, this is just nonsense from a very personal experience.
High school kids and working class people without a college education are as curious, perceptive, and intelligent as their counterparts and should have access and familiarity with the great works. They should also be encouraged to take on the challenge of understanding them.
Better to say, "I struggled with the classics", or "I didn't have a teacher who made the adventure fun", than to make a grand declaration against anyone being introduced to them before college.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I'm going to go write, but first, Simone Weil said:
"Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating."
And Auden wrote:
"Evil is unspectacular and always human, / And shares our bed and eats at our own table."
I've had a theory since like college that we are too fascinated with imaginary evil. And think of goodness as uninteresting. More intriguing to read about serial killers than people sheltering the homeless. And the fascination is justified under the idea of depth in evil.
Since 2016, papers have been looking to make Trump and his supporters respectable and they'll find a way to do it against all evidence of bigotry and cruelty
His base spent the last four years terrorizing everyone labeled an enemy while he encouraged them and his administration worked to create a world hostile to others but journalists will be damned if they don't maintain the idea that it's all just a big misunderstanding
"Horace was...anti-giraffe. The animal was, he believed, conceptually untidy: ‘If a painter had chosen to set a human head on a horse’s neck [or] if a lovely woman ended repulsively in the tail of a black fish, could you stifle laughter, friends?’"
"They have been known to host tiny yellow-billed oxpeckers on their bodies: the birds remove ticks from their skin, and clean the food from between their teeth. Giraffes have been photographed at night with clusters of sleeping birds tucked into their armpits, keeping them dry."
Alright, but this is hilarious:
"Each time a giraffe dips down to drink, legs splayed, the blood rushes to its brain; as it bends, the jugular vein closes off blood to the head, to stop it fainting when it straightens up again."
Maybe the bully will then get a book/podcast/TV gig where they can talk endlessly about the rampant mob that attacked them and is too sensitive to seeing other ideas?
"The question we should be asking is not why people are sometimes cruel...but how we have come to create institutions that encourage such behavior and that suggest cruel people are in some ways admirable—or at least as deserving of sympathy as those they push around."