>and I don't think the author intended to say that we should give up on reading. :)
He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it, and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it.
>Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold.
So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it "changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?
He did, however, seem to be saying that we should give up on literary criticism, which is a different thing -- you shouldn't even need a google search to tell you the difference between reading and analyzing :) It was s a stupid thing of him to say, but then I've heard quite a few scientists say it, and I'm quite willing to believe that he meant it.
>Much of it is junk, but some of it is gold.
So, why are you asking for a defense of it? Isn't the fact that some of it "changed the way you see the world around you" enough of a defense?