The Key to Literary Theory: Don't be an Asshole

Since this comment's been linked to a few times, I thought I'd lift it from the thread and score a cheap post.  The context:

I turned in the paper savaged in yesterday's post.  It came back with comments to the effect of:

I'm giving you an "A," but come talk to me. You don't want to become an asshole. 

But There Is Danger. 

Office hours Monday. Please attend. Don't, and for certain, you'll become an asshole.

I showed up on Monday morning to receive my dressing-down.  Went something like this:

You like theory, and that's awesome. I wish more kids were enthusiastic. BUT—and this is an ALL-CAPS, BOLDED "BUT"—there are different ways to approach theoretical problems. I'll charitably define yours as an "entitled imperialism," because you believe that reading a tiny excerpt of a three-part philosophical masterpiece entitles you to lay waste to Kant's entire project. You can't do that. Only assholes can. Hence, The Danger. You have to take writers seriously, study them, the commentary on them, and then—and ONLY then—should you assert yourself as you did in this paper.

Only it took an hour to deliver, and was peppered with detailed examples from secondary literature on Kant to show me what engaged critique actually looks like.  I left the office in tears, but with a firm idea of what solid theoretical critique looked like.  If only it hadn't taken three years for me to produce any ... but that's another story.

(Also, if you haven't read the comments on that last post, you've missed out on J.S. Nelson's maudlin tale of intellectual un-discovery and Human's inspiring story of Kant, conversion, and sexual discovery ... and are the worse for it.)

Comments

[Vance Maverick]

I wrote my version of this paper in my junior year, and got a version of that talk from Anthony Appiah. He was very gentle. I've hardly read any philosophy since -- not through any fault of his, but because I realized how very far I was from being able to engage with it.

[SEK]

Vance, I'm not particularly adept at it either ... and it shows, in good and bad ways, in my work.

[Ray Davis]

When I wrote that paper, my prof was so shocked she refused to speak to me for several weeks. I think she was dealing with issues in her personal life at the time, but still it would've been nice to get some guidance.

As you know, I still produce what might be called variations on the theme. Embarrassing myself and being corrected seems to be the only way I can learn anything, as well as being in itself a perverse source of pleasure. In this case I gotta go Freudian and blame childhood experience rather than genetics. Overreaching intellectual conversations with older women was for l'il Ray what cowboy boots on older women was for li'l R. Crumb.