In asking the question of why modern things such as "things that are currently fashionable to today's 20 year old's" are less worthy for study than traditional

In asking the question of why modern things such as "things that are currently fashionable to today's 20 year old's" are less worthy for study than traditional subjects, these phrases were given: >free of misunderstandings >less obfuscated >clever literally mental contortions >intentionally confusing I imagine you would be seeking to understand the difference, and seeking to understand why some things that may appear obfuscated and confusing to a modern person are thought of by many to be better. I hope I can help the understanding via this comment. Pretty much all poetry for example is full of misunderstandings, obfuscated, with clever literally devices and it is intentionally so. Consider poetry then! Think about why many people value poetry over a clear concise newspaper article. Why do humans like art, why do people like these confusing things? Do they actually enjoy the confusion, or is it something else that they enjoy? Your example is Jane Austin vs 50 shades of grey. Perhaps other comparisons would help. How about Dan Brown vs Shakespeare? How about Beethoven vs Bananarama? How about Turner vs Bob Ross? Do these comparisons help in understanding what defines a quality piece of work? Do you think that a university that for two years examines Dan Brown in it's literature department will continue doing so when Dan Brown no longer becomes popular and Game of Thrones becomes popular? What does that say about the educational and artistic value of an author when they are forgotten a few years later? Should the subjects of universities be decided by the consumers, the young students? Or should they be decided by the academic establishment? What difference would that make to education, to critical thinking? This is some of what the article was about.