[aporetics]

It’s worth reading Ms Schultz’s other articles; if you do, you may come to the conclusion I did, which is that she is a very skilled provocateur, and always finds just that angle in whatever topic she is investigating.

Her hack job on Thoreau demonstrates this [0], in the selections of his writing that she reproduces and her at best inability to read his words (at worst willful misrepresentation them). It is easy to say that the “[Vision of Thoreau as a national conscience] cannot survive any serious reading of “Walden.”” It is much harder to know how to read Walden seriously.

[0] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum