[tizzy]

I don't think you read the article, or if you did you didn't understand it.

The idea isn't books themselves are good or bad, it's that the same book can be good or bad depending on who you are. Maybe that's a surface level view, but it doesn't relate to the second half of your comment?

[corethree]

I did read it.

I know the idea. My statement is saying books can be bad irregardless of context just like how television or video can be bad.

This person is basically saying all books are good. Just reframe context and everything is good.

I mean you can say this about practically everything in the universe even literal shit. Shit fertilizes plants.

I made a comparison to television which flew over everyone's head.

Basically it's obvious to everyone that tv can be universally bad or good right? There are good movies and shit movies and excellent documentaries. This concept makes sense.

But suddenly for books it makes no sense? All books are good? You just need the right context? This is wrong.

[quibono]

> This person is basically saying all books are good.

I'm sorry, I really don't see how you arrive at this. I would say the author expresses the opposite of what you're talking about (i.e. "this book has this value to this person in this context.").

I understand what you're trying to say about the inherent effort-bias relationship but I think it's very tenuous at best.

[corethree]

I think your entire post is tenuose given how a quote can prove your first paragraph completely and utterly wrong.

You're the one that didn't read the article:

"Now, I believe it’s much more useful to say something in this form: this book has this value to this person in this context."

She used to think all books were good. This paragraph shows her current thinking. That all books are still good. You just need to think about it from a different angle/context.

I'm sorry. But saying I didn't read the article is offensively wrong. I'm even inclined to believe that it's a lie. You're just deliberately making it up.