So... by the people who have trained themselves to like it?
No, by people who like reading and who have widened their palate by exposure, not by forcing themselves to read what they don't like. And again, this doesn't reduce to only what I like/what I don't like. There's a third category that may fall in either camp: what I appreciate by way of understanding. You may like most of it, but chances are you won't like all of it, even though you can appreciate it.
Some people can't stand Faulkner, or Fitzgerald, many can't begin to wade into much of Joyce or Echo, but they should be able to recognize the extraordinary skill in evidence. With music especially, it being such an immediate medium, I can understand that a large percentage of a world pushed toward a minimum effort/maximum speed of access would miss a lot of what is truly great for the satisfyingly immediate.
People drive through McDonald's every day. Few people go there for Thanksgiving.
But we are talking about enjoyment, here.
Let's just keep that in mind.
Sure, I went to the heart of that and the sponsoring debate in my last. You didn't speak to it. To recap: what I think is missed in the discussion over acclimation is whether there is any real reason for the impulse to acclimate. By way of, if you were a vegetarian stranded on an island overrun with wild pigs but not much by way of vegetables, you'd have an impulse, hunger, and the sating would necessarily move through that meat.
Sex is dramatically different. It's an activity that, degree of satisfaction aside, doesn't require a radical alteration of tendency, where that alteration is possible...and I think for many it is possible, because I suspect there are a great many people whose inclination isn't as rooted as it is for the majority. Or, it wouldn't surprise me to find a sliver of people born with an inclination to same sex, a much greater number less particularly rooted (bisexuals) and the majority of people oriented on the opposite sex.
The idea that most of us could change our orientation seems mistaken, to me. And the mistake is rooted in assuming a necessity where none exists and failing to find a reason, absent some inclination, to accommodate in order to sate the impulse. Just so, I noted that abstinence would be preferable to participation in sexual congress with my own sex, for me. So the "Could I?" is a moot point where there is nothing in my makeup that will move me past the "Why would I make the attempt?" And it's a problem for anyone who argues that anyone else could modify their taste on the point.
