Why were so many writers revered only posthumously?
A lot of people don't live on the EDGE of the present, so a lot of work only reach people years after it's done, because 'intellectuals' > media end up writing about them
>>8814017
Because dead men are much easier to glorify.
>>8814269
This is also a good point, most people don't care unless they've been shilled something through education, media and so forth.
>>8814017
so you literally hate reading now!?
I'm not about to ideologically and aesthetically commit to a person who might do something wrong at any moment.
Imagine praising a living author and suddenly he turns out to be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. Suddenly your association with him that used to be a social virtue and gave you credit has become possibly really problematic, and people will be quick to point out to you, in real life and on social media, how that person you praised is bad. Even if you delete old tweets at that point it's probably too late.
people die after they've lived a while
>>8816020
God that gives me nightmares. Just knowing people have all these thoughts and actions I can't see, and that many may very possibly go against fundamental ethical principles i.e. the universal dignity of all beings... shudder. I can't count the number of media products I've had to destroy utterly when I discovered the sordid impure natures of their progenitors. And I am still stained and traumatized forever by the association.
We have to vanquish the privacy demon I think in order to expunge the darkness in our midst. All internet histories ought be public and connected to real names, for one. Of course this does not go far enough, for within their skulls who knows what wretched thoughts might be thought? And not every area can be as precisely, comprehensively observed and policed as the internet. I can only pray that future technology will somehow ameliorate this. No particle of behavior should exist without our (the community of reasonable human beings) consent.