The classics discussion on Twitter is another example of how people have become zealous about insisting that art be viewed entirely as an ideological product. Its merits and demerits rising and falling completely on its political worldview.

But art doesn't fall into simple binaries. We can be aware of the glaring flaws of a piece of work and shortcomings, yet still be deeply moved or transfixed by it.

There are so many books and movies that I have enjoyed that have aspects that I despise - homophobia, misogyny, transphobia - but also led me towards a clearer understanding of what that kind of dehumanisation means & the ways in which it plays out.

Part of viewing the book entirely as an ideological product is also that the writer is seen as representing their book's ethos.

But...a writer can write a moving and deeply humanistic piece of work while being awful people. Their art isn't a testament to their empathy or their political acuity.

Similarly reading certain books is no indicator of your worldviews. I know people whose politics is radical and are engaged with politics but whose reading choices range from Chetan Bhagat to Who Moved My Cheese.

Long rambling Twitter thread. Sorry if you read through this but this simplistic classics good YA bad. YA good classics bad discussion was annoying me!