PS to yesterday's entry . . .

Stephen Vincent Benét
- an older and wiser man -

Google Images

A different, more grounded, but equally "disdainful" reviewer also panned my paper on Stephen Vincent Benét. I say "disdainful" because of this remark to my citation of an encyclopedia to ground the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism:

The author . . . simply appropriates/promulgates the ethnic/civic paradigm (gleaned from an encyclopedia) without analysis.

I didn't "glean" this from an encyclopedia. I simply cited a clear distinction offered by an encyclopedia because the audience in a session on literature and national identity - for whom I initially noted the distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism - seemed utterly unaware of this distinction and found the distinction difficult to fathom. My citation was a courtesy to that initial audience after a question-and-answer session revealed the confusion.

That should clarify the context, but the deep "disdain" is the assumption that because I don't expound upon some aspect of critical theory or literary theory in my writing, then I must be ignorant of it.

Therefore, listen, you doubters, disdainers, you double-down deniers, I studied under Martin Jay at UC Berkeley, and I understand critical theory. I've read plenty of literary criticism since then, and I know the connections between the two. I edit for various journals, and I know what you're talking about, so don't assume that I'm ignorant.

Read my writing with at least a modicum of humility . . .