so what

I thought I would write a post about things I dislike in academic or non-fiction texts. I'm not going to name texts or writers. 

One thing I don't like is when writers assume that terms we use now meant the same thing in earlier historic periods. I think writers make this mistake when they're too focused on a particular argument they're trying to make. So, they'll grasp at anything that supports their argument. It seems like an insight to them. They think - no one has seen this before because they haven't viewed things from my point of view. And maybe they're right, but why I dislike it when writers do this is that they seem to rely as much on these kinds of movements in their argument as they do on more intuitive and reasonable points - points that a general reader - i.e not a subject matter expert like themselves - would probably agree on. So, they lose me because they're trying to make everything about their issue or area of interest. I suppose that's what you're meant to do when you write a book. But I think the best argument is one that gives the impression of being balanced and gives most weight to points that seem reasonable, instead of issues that are a bit obscure. Delving into obscurity might seem to reflect intelligence and insight, but it can also undermine your argument. 

The other thing I dislike - this one I absolutely abhor - is also related to the writer's perception of their own insight. This one is where the writer does a kind of scholarly detective work - consulting weather charts, diaries, historical records, as well as the literature itself - to then present their argument about what a famous writer's works 'really' meant - what they were actually writing about. This makes me want to scream for three reasons:

1. One of the main factors that endows literature with great power and meaning - what makes it literary - is that the meaning is indeterminate. When you read a good book or a great book, it speaks to you personally...it's like having a relationship. There's a creative tension between authorial expression and reader impression. Any claim that is supposedly definitive, about what the text 'really' means, shows a lack of understanding of the nature of literature. 

2. It's deeply disrespectful to the original writer. 

3. It's very self-serving. The later writer who is presenting their case, often in the form of a purported biography, is claiming some kind of special insight - into not only the works of the author but the author him or herself - that everyone else has missed. I think sometimes scholars can reasonably make that claim....there are some very good and very insightful biographies of great writers. and there's nothing wrong with making claims and backing them up with evidence, but it's that particular approach - the 'detective like' approach that yields supposedly authoritative assertions about what the literary text means, that I don't like.