3 ms·

Rarely does an article swing paraphrase by paragraph between interesting analysis and the opposite as much as this. Edit: guilty of my own snark, here is an ex

Rarely does an article swing paraphrase by paragraph between interesting analysis and the opposite as much as this. Edit: guilty of my own snark, here is an excerpt from the conclusion that I appreciate: > There’s no doubt that reading for pleasure as a child can change your life. It is a key predictor of economic success later in life. But the main reason to help children seek out books is this: if you cut a person off from reading, you’re a thief. You cut them off from the song that humanity has been singing for thousands of years. You cut them off from what we have laid out for the next generation, and the next. It’s in the technology of writing that we’ve preserved our boldest, most original thought, our best jokes and most generous comfort. To fail to do everything we can to help children hear that song is a cruelty – and a stupidity – for which we should not expect to be forgiven. We need to be infinitely more furious that there are children without books.

woolion 2y ago
That seems a fair assessment to me. The article starts with: >It is the work of a writer for children to do the same for the world itself. Children have not yet built wide hinterlands: to them, the world is still opaque and full of necessary bewilderment. Those who write for children have the chance to point them towards beauty that they do not yet know exists I think this is the kind of metaphysical flight of fancies that are not only useless, but lead astray. My observation is the opposite: children find beauty everywhere. Beauty is just the natural state of things. They have not been trained yet to see things from the lens of their own interest, which is the basis for the eye of discrimination. Things that are good for me are beautiful, things that are bad for me are ugly. Children have yet to learn what is good or bad for them. Then there are the "rules" of children's books... but these have changed a lot in the last century, and most of what the industry takes for granted nowadays would have seemed absurd and laughable to the great authors whose legacy she claims.
- te_chris 2y ago
  I feel like you’re agreeing with the author
guy234 2y ago
> Rarely does an article swing paraphrase by paragraph between interesting analysis and the opposite as much as this. what

woolion 2y ago

That seems a fair assessment to me. The article starts with: >It is the work of a writer for children to do the same for the world itself. Children have not yet built wide hinterlands: to them, the world is still opaque and full of necessary bewilderment. Those who write for children have the chance to point them towards beauty that they do not yet know exists I think this is the kind of metaphysical flight of fancies that are not only useless, but lead astray. My observation is the opposite: children find beauty everywhere. Beauty is just the natural state of things. They have not been trained yet to see things from the lens of their own interest, which is the basis for the eye of discrimination. Things that are good for me are beautiful, things that are bad for me are ugly. Children have yet to learn what is good or bad for them. Then there are the "rules" of children's books... but these have changed a lot in the last century, and most of what the industry takes for granted nowadays would have seemed absurd and laughable to the great authors whose legacy she claims.

te_chris 2y ago
I feel like you’re agreeing with the author

guy234 2y ago

> Rarely does an article swing paraphrase by paragraph between interesting analysis and the opposite as much as this. what