Yeah, it's sublime how we can be confused for four decades over something that is so much a part of our childhood and our popular culture, something that goes unexplained for so long and we are expected to marvel at it with an almost religious awe when it makes no real sense, and then someone finally explains that it's been mistaken and incomplete all this time... and now I wonder why I was expected to be so amazed at the misquote (or at least the incomplete quote) for so many years.
Kinda reminds me of the accepted iterations of biblical literalism, religious dogma and religion in general: like how much of that stuff has an "a" left out? But that's a much longer discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment