A hermeneutic of suspicion...

Too Expensive?

A textbook case...

(Image from Wikipedia)

Readers will recall my recent mention of a Professor C. Cox, the Milton List participant who criticized the 'tyranny' implicit in my remarks about "licentiousness" and "liberty" that I had written for a humorous column about language in the Expat Living section of the Korea Herald two weeks ago.

Professor Cox also dislikes something that he thinks that I wrote on the Milton List itself . . . but you'll need some context.

Several scholars on the listserve were discussing whether or not students are displaying "greed" by purchasing used books instead of the new ones ordered specifically for the course.

A certain Professor Flannagan thought that "inverse greed" motivates students, and even professors, to buy cheaper, used books, by which he must have meant that such customers were being miserly.

In response to Flannagan, a Professor Logsdon disagreed with the view that "professors and students tend to be driven to used copies of texts by inverse greed, to get something for nothing," and he asked:

But where does the simple fact that life is f**king expensive come in? Who can blame a student or professor for still wanting to still be able to make ends meet after the book expenses are all tallied up? My USED copy of Hughes was over $60!

Since I concurred with this point, I wrote:

I agree with Prof. Logsdon, life is swyvend expensive.

I might be able to afford an expensive book these days -- or until my contract runs out -- but as a student, I had no money left after tuition except for what I got by working 20 hours a week for less than minimum wage on a "work/study" job at the university cafeteria as dishwasher.

There must still be a lot of students who struggle financially and are driven by a budget rather than greed.

Professor Cox found something to dislike in what I'd written, so he quoted the offending words and commented on them:

Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote: "There must still be a lot of students who struggle financially and are driven by a budget rather than greed."

Carrol Cox wrote: "Don't even make this comparison. Greed (decently defined) consists in accumulating more money (from the work of others) than one would need for personal expenses. If you want to talk in ethical terms (though I think it rather unintelligent to do so in this contex), then the student who buys the cheapest text available is practicing the virtue of prudence."

Was the man trying to insult me? He certainly sounded annoyed. I chose to respond concisely rather than to repeat words that he'd already misconstrued:

Well, Carrol, my words were chosen to express polite disagreement with Roy Flannagan, but thanks all the same for the lessons on vice, virtue, intelligence, and the subtle art of gracious opposition.

Professor Cox retorted:

I don't think attacks on the right to survival deserve a polite or gracious response. I was deliberately ungracious.

At least his intention to insult was now clarified. I replied:

In that case, Carrol, you were surely thinking of some post other than mine since my post protested against the charge that students are greedy for buying used books.

I suppose that this exchange will go on, but I doubt that my words will sway Professor Cox, who seems locked into a hermeneutic of suspicion when reading Words Posted By Horace Jeffery Hodges, thereby leading to a total misconstrual of whatever I happen to post.

At least the misreadings give me something to blog about...