Tim Rhodes <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
I suspect it only seemed more "obvious" to you because it wasn't your point he was proving this time. If the first parable was to have a real "moral", the house should have fallen down at the end. As it stands, the moral is, "Blind trust is stupid, but that brother is a real ass regardless."
"my point"? Failability/Imperfection is at least as much "my point" as "Check your foundations" (indeed, the former is the source of the need for the latter). But I would contend that the second essay's point was obvious becuase the author kept hitting the reader over the head with it... again, and again, and again! (which is to say, one doesn't have to deduce it from the story, the story gives it to you by throwing a rock through every window in your house...)
It does seem rather pointless to debate over the relative perception of quality... That said, I personally found the brothers character to be much nicer than the House Owner, who tended to be reactionary and had a serious case of identifying with his memes (and property)... But then I'm obviously biased. I like hearing the truth -- even if it is ugly and immoral.
But I'll stop... it's now time to hear your biases.