I don't see anywhere that it says that. It observes that people do that, and that they take pleasure in their prejudices, but nowhere does he approve of that. Rather he talks at length about how it causes people, including himself, to miss out on good authors and books for no good reason - "Our distaste for the trappings of publication puts us off from something great." He also refers to this prejudice as elitist and says he could only defend it with a "pretentious" deflection.
Heck, just look at how he summarizes at the end: "And soon enough, it seems that what passes as taste is an arbitrary extension of our insecurities and neuroses, and that an insane hubris undergirds every value judgment, and that the best thing to do would be to start over, bringing no preconceptions at all into our lives as readers."
If I missed the part where he actually advocates prejudice please point it out.
He tiptoes around it a lot and goes back and forth in order not to offend anyone or seem too crude, but the core of the article is all about how it's common and joyful to not read authors due to prejudice, and how we all do it, and some examples of his doing it.
Let's put it this way: due to his guilt, instead of an unapologetic celebration of not reading with prejudice, it's an apologetic celebration of the same.
Having re-read it, I still can't see it as a "celebration." I would say he's acknowledging a bad habit that he can't kick. It's an admission of continuing weakness in the face of cheap pleasure, like a good critic that can't stop binge eating Spicy Cheetos.
There's guilt, but there's also: "hey guys I EAT Spicy Cheetos, and we all eat Spicy Cheetos. Let's admit it. And it feels good. Here are some funny Cheetos stories I have."
Then there are the advicing, "yeah, I know it's bad, yeah, health, yeah, nutricion, you shouldn't do it, we miss on better foods etc".
But that part is more like an obligatory guilt/save-face addition, whereas the core is "I do, you've done it, it's normal and even enjoyful".
It sure doesn't seem to me like an article written with the intention to putting an end to the practice -- more to admit it and excuse it. Eveywhere he stomps on the guy who dismissed Pratchett without having read him, he adds "but, ...", and "don't get me wrong, ...".
Hm. I think you're saying he's putting a faux-rebuke onto a happy article. Whereas I still think he's putting a happy veneer on what is ultimately a rebuke. I'm not sure how to tell which is the case, or if it even actually matters.
But hey, kudos for a cogent defense of your position. Good internetting!
Heck, just look at how he summarizes at the end: "And soon enough, it seems that what passes as taste is an arbitrary extension of our insecurities and neuroses, and that an insane hubris undergirds every value judgment, and that the best thing to do would be to start over, bringing no preconceptions at all into our lives as readers."
If I missed the part where he actually advocates prejudice please point it out.