[rkon]

My problem with literary criticism is that it's essentially a disingenuous pseudoscience. Critics make authoritative pronouncements on human nature, culture, society, etc., when they're not actually qualified social scientists. They constantly misappropriate theories from other disciplines, yet they make no effort to support their claims with research or empirical evidence.

Literary criticism as a whole seems to suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of epistemology (for which I'm sure we can thank postmodernism). It's the perfect platform for anti-intellectuals to espouse their unsubstantiated social and political theories while enjoying immunity from any rigorous scrutiny.

[jonnathanson]

With all due respect, I think you're reading the wrong literary criticism.

That's quite a broad brush with which to paint the entire field, and I can assure you that most of it does not "deal in authoritative pronouncements on human nature, culture, society, etc." or "misappropriate theories from other disciplines." The best literary criticism analyzes and evaluates what's in the text, and does not attempt to conflate literature with philosophy or sociology (unless in an anthropological sense of those fields).

Perhaps some of you have had some bad English teachers or professors? I think we all have. There are vanishingly few good ones out there these days. But we should not confuse bad literary criticism with all literary criticism. Just as I wouldn't look at a horribly coded mess and conclude that the field of programming is bunk, I wouldn't look at a terrible example of criticism and condemn the entire field.