...
Maybe you thought I didn't read classics, and so you thought that a meandering milieu of multisyllabic mockery would be overlooked by me, or not quite grasped. I assure you, I have read and understood, a great deal of "classical" literature... and understanding does not always lead to appreciation. I have stated that time and again, and you neglect to acknowledge or accept the idea that a "classic" might actually lose relevance with time. True prejudice comes with the act of prejudging. If a book says "classic" on the cover, you immediately throw it into the bin of "good books I must read".
Even I, as a sci-fi fan, know better than to assume all sci-fi is good. For a genre of books to label itself thusly is grossly inaccurate and arrogant. If the terminology were referring to a time period, or a style mimicking something from a specific time period, as with the term "Classical Music" the terminology would be far more acceptably accurate.
At any rate, I didn't misconstrue anything about your original post. I said I didn't like the terminology used to describe the class of books we are referring to as "Classic Literature" and you took the opportunity to talk down to me, insult me, and generally be rude in a manner specific to me. There was nothing 'malextended' about it. Therefore I reiterate my reply of... fuck you. Spend a little more time talking to people, rather than down at them, and maybe you won't think everyone misconstrues what you have to say. I understood you quite clearly.
It's patently clear you have not understood what I spoke of, Johnson, if you think I reject the possibility of a work losing relevance over time (my discussion on the evolution of literature should have made
quite clear the exact opposite); or that I assume the quality of
any work or idea before acquainting myself with it.
I made two remarks which you interpreted as insults. One, that you are prejudiced against literature and those who work professionally for better understanding of it, and those who choose it as a hobby (who you off-handedly sneer as pursuing base egoism). My notion was not untoward. Your too-quick and unjust vilifications of literature were based on unjust, or at least logically vapid, stereotypes of literature.
Second, I noted that merely reading does not fully establish understanding of literature. Contrary to your assumption that this statement is based on some insult of you, it is merely my recognizing that the field of literary analysis has a depth in consequence of the division of labor and specialization that pretty much all fields have contemporarily. To deny this time-established depth is not only ignorant, it is an implicit rejection of the very competitive market processes that you, as a libertarian, most probably support otherwise.
I don't understand this intellectual lock-down you've imposed on yourself. Literature is my hobby, as I've said; and nothing here should be construed as grandstanding on my part. If anything, I feel I'm more defending my friends and professors with whom I maintain discourse - and am routinely in awe of for their dedication and nuance of understanding - from those who would disparage their work (being unaware - that is, ignorant - of its nature).
But thank you for your more polite response.
You can keep your fuck you, though - I have little use for such things, as I am my harshest critic.