![Avatar](/_next/image?url=%2Flemmy-icon-96x96.webp&w=3840&q=75)
UntitledQuitting
I think it’s more that if you identify with anyone (as lots of people do with Jack black) then it’s easy to assume they have your general worldview. I think that’s the case with a bunch of parasocial “relationships”. It’s a bunch of people assuming literal strangers agree with them.
It’s a reference to Abraham Lincoln’s first inaugural address:
“I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”
if the lens you view novels through is art then this will upset you. If the lens you’re viewing them through is as information that is to be ingested, this will do just fine.
Books are allowed to be verbose and take risks in language, but I’d argue that in transferable information it’s inefficient.
I thought your argument was that the movie industry isn’t immune to enshittification? I was pointing out how you’re correct by using a quote from a film exec that proves your point. Films are a business, and if businesses want to make money then they have to appeal to audiences, so course correction is possible. I’m allowed to live in my duality.