There is certainly much sense/truth in other answers and comments... if we are careful to put them in context.

E.g., Weil and Serre were two of the most scholarly of mathematicians in the 20th century. To cite them in a way to endorse "not studying" is ... hilarious/insane.

Yes, we can "redefine" "mathematical research" in a fashion to make it possible to do it with minimal prerequisites. Ok.

On another hand, I do hesitate to disparage the work of lots of insightful people in the past.

On yet-another-hand, yes, textbooks (as opposed to monographs, and other...) do all-too-often caricature their subject. To meet commercial publishers' expectations, and, similarly, bureaucrats' expectations.

But, not only should we not spend too much of our energy on re-inventing crappy versions of a "wheel", we should not misconstrue derivative textbooks as reflecting real mathematics. :)