[stereolambda]

How paradoxical. Man rejects books about rebelliousness because of negative social proof. Over time has increasingly sophisticated collectively-held ideology about why they are bad. Initially, it apparently was about pure artistic merit, a notion since more or less purged. No matter, the justification meanwhile morphed into something else. One might start to think there was actually something to these "forbidden" tomes, now that they are actually (again?) frowned upon by your Lit professors.

Not saying these are universal masterpieces. To every reader slightly different books will be the most enriching. It's true that at a certain age, there is often a transformation from the young adult interest in self to interest in the wider world. But the self is still what humans have, so it's not like it ever ceases to be relevant for one's experience.

While there is something romantic in finding a subculture, even one just slightly adjacent to the mainstream, [being] more chancy, on reflection I'm glad we no longer have it like that. (In fact, we probably regressed a little bit because of the decline of open internet and Google, and the move to group chats.) But today's youth can find and pirate whatever they want. The establishment is founded more on pure concentration of money and financing for legacy institutions, not actual technological hurdles like it used to be.