Originally Posted by
Pierre Menard
1.Similar to Bloom's description. Marxist analysis, Identity Politics, Gender Studies, Post-Colonial Studies, etc. Now, it's not to say these disciplines by and large can't add to interesting discourse, however I find that discourse mostly limited to philosophical or social studies. As a form of literary criticism, I often find it's practitioners (by this I mean students, bloggers, review sites that adhere to it, etc) insular and self-serving, with little to nothing to add to the appreciation of literature.
2. The pernicious influence I talk about is using literature (and art in general) as an ideological tool designed to serve your own interests. Beyond that, it's the same thing I see everyday all over the internet, rejecting art because you disagree with it ideologically. I can't abide by that, and find it a childish way to view art. Now, ideological dismissals of art have always been around, this to me, is just it's modern form, but I still feel it something to argue against.
3. I come across a lot of 'This art work from the past doesn't align to my modern day ethics completely, therefore I dismiss it' types of thinking, as opposed to a more reasoned and nuanced approach to the work. And that's ultimately my issue - complex, nuanced appreciation of art that differs from your ideological outlook is a must when discussing and appreciating the history of an art form, outright dismissal is insular and childish to me, but I see it often.
I also accept there may very well be some people who have good intentions in these courses, and are simply interested on focusing on a type of literature that has a personal relevance to them, but it's not usually these folk who are the loud, blustery and overly-idelogical ones.