Literature Lost: Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities

by John M. Ellis

Book Overview

In Literature Lost, John Ellis subjects the fashionable notions that now dominate college curricula in the humanities to a careful historical and logical analysis. The result is a devastating critique and a comprehensive rebuttal of the claims made for the reigning orthodoxy. "[Ellis is] not the first . . . to express dismay at [the extraordinary changes that have come over the teaching of the humanities in American universities]; what distinguishes...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0300075790
• ISBN13: 9780300075793
• Release Date: April 1999
• Publisher: Yale University Press
• Length: 262 Pages
• Weight: 0.80 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.5" x 8.3"

Customer Reviews

Stupendous.

Literature Lost has to be the most powerful indictment of political correctness that I have ever read. It is clear, logical, and coolly dismantles every tenet of cultural Marxism while restoring legitimacy to literary theory and scholarship in general. John Ellis is far brighter than many of the stars of academia and makes short work of the trendy faddists in these pages. I have endlessly heard the startling claim that "there is no such thing as objectivity," yet the author, in his chapter on PC logic, destroys this assertion by illustrating that there is a continuum between objectivity and subjectivity and that, while a view may never be 100 percent objective, some positions are more clouded by subjectivity than are others. Ellis's argumentation and discussion is invaluable for those outraged over the politicalization, and delegitimacy, of the professorate. This man has brought pride and honor back to his profession. I've read and reread Literature Lost several times and I strongly encourage you to do so as well.

Against oppressive, hegemonic, coercive pomo junkies!

As a graduate student of literature, I found Mr. Ellis's book very intelligent, informative, and helpful. He exposes the illogical thoughts of many race-gender-class critics, including those of the ones we are taught to adore in postmodern theory-oriented classes (Foucault, Jameson, Derrida, etc.). He reminds us that, although politics is a genuine concern for research in literature, it is by no means the only one of importance. Ellis also shows us how affirmative action is harmful to society because it teaches people to have pride in their race before their individuality. He explains that racial pride has led to violent consequences in the past (as with Hitler and Germany). A point Ellis raises about research that is important for all students in academic fields is that pomo critics often go into a piece of literature looking for specific things to "prove" their agenda, and that this is not true research. In real academic research, the goal is to dig deeply and find out if your assumptions are true and/or logical. Unfortunately, the goal for race-gender-class scholars is to find literature to apply their theories to. This behavior does not demonstrate a love of literature, but sadly, it has permeated classrooms all over the country. This book is a must-read for students who are ready for the postmodern cloud to pass. The irony in postmodernism is that the critics, themselves, are creating a hegemonic society in literature departments around the US by insisting upon tunnel vision views of the West and literature and excluding those who don't agree (via ad hominem). They force broader-minded people who don't think the West is such a bad place out of the academy. This book is a defense of those individuals, as well.Ellis's jargon-free text is a useful book for students and teachers alike. I highly recommend it to all!

Thank You, Professor Ellis

My first exposure to the inanities of current trends among the 'soft science' literati was through the work of the incomparable historian Gertrude Himmelfarb, who eloquently describes the effects of these hate-filled trends on the study of History in the academy. Ellis presents a logical, simple, and scholarly expose of the racial and sexual hatred that has infested our Literature schools, first in the academies, and now filtered down to all areas in public high schools and elementary schools. Little wonder that race relations in the US have taken a turn for the worse, although most Americans are at a loss to explain why this has happened. Look no further than the extremists in the academy and their devastating effect on public education at all levels. Ellis elegantly exposes the lack of logical thought among these academics, but I found Chapter 9 also very enlightening in the presentation of reasons for the development of this sad state of affairs. You will recognize in this chapter what you have known intuitively, but have not put into words, particularly the sad attempt to achieve accolades on the part of mediocre and uncreative minds. Envy and self-loathing are powerful motivators. (Among other things, it is a sad legacy of the premature death of Martin Luther King, who stood for principles solidly in opposition to these hate-mongers.) As a woman in a technical profession, the notion put forth by extremist feminists that women can not think 'vertically' (as in math, science, logic) is particularly repugnant, and can only do great harm to young women seeking a profession. Yes, men may typically excel in 3-dimensional space concepts, and yes, women excel in language and communication. But to suggest that algebra and logic are symptoms of 'patriarchal' oppression and that women should shun them is false and harmful. In fact, it has taken women many years to get rid of this nincompoopery, only to have it revived by androgynists who claim to be speaking in the interest of women. If men had suggested this, they would have been bricked by vigilantes. Likewise, the notion that all heterosexual sex is 'rape' seems to be not only absurd, but pathological. Is it really doing women a favor to put loving, kind husbands and sexual sadists (rapists) in the same category? Why are these schools being funded by the public? Is it lawful to preach hate and stupidity on campus these days? Should the public be required to fund those who advocate the destruction of their country or their culture? Perhaps a mandatory period of live-in study in a non-Western country is in order for these armchair revolutionaries who are ruining our schools - somewhere like Afghanistan, Uganda, or Bosnia, with expenses paid by the academy, which will be much cheaper than paying them the much-higher-than-living wage of the Western culture they so despise. Sadly, parents who enroll their sons and daughters are generally unaware of t

Back To Logic

This book can be used as a study book in logic courses. The fallacies Ellis detects are so blatant and ridiculous, that it's hard to believe he didn't make them up himself, so it's a good thing that he gives loads of sources where he got them from. Also, his erudition is impressive: in the chapter on Theory of Literature he summarizes the history of theoretical thought with an ease that betrays great mastery of the matter. But the most striking thing is this: Ellis manages to attack PC WITHOUT making himself look like a very conservative man, which would be the first accusation his opponents would make. Ellis is not attacking the new in favor of the old, but rather the stupid in favor of the wise. Though this book concerns American matters, its clarity and logic would warrant a Dutch translation. I stumbled across it coincidentally, but I wouldn't wanna miss it at any cost.

Probably the best book yet about the so-called culture wars.

Professor Ellis' previous book, *Language, Thought, and Logic*, is as good as academe gets: almost unbelievably well-researched, clearly written, and logical. His new *Literature Lost* has the same qualities, and as a bonus, it is clearly written with a much wider audience in mind. Both committed participants and bemused observers of the culture wars can read *Literature Lost* and profit enormously. Ellis' dissection of critical studies darling Frederick Jameson is alone worth the price of the book. Jameson, who is held in near awe by many faculty lounge radicals, is shown for what he is: a critic who is, evidently, so blinded by hostility toward the west that he is rendered thoroughly incoherent. How else can one explain Jameson's conclusion that Stalin "succeeded" because he made the U.S.S.R an industrial nation? One might reasonably conclude that Stalin "succeeded" in mass murder, yet Jameson simply ignores the blood on Stalin's hand. Ellis is also especially good at showing the mile-wide gaps in logic that the academic "radicals" often fall into. Stanley Fish, the superstar academic at Duke, is one of the many logically-challenged folks examined by Ellis. The phoniness of so many academic leftists is quite striking too: as Fish, Jameson, J. Cole, McIntosh, et. al. go through their ritual cliches about the oppressive West, its racism, sexism, etc., the thought never occurs to them that the non-Western world is objectively more hostile to women, the poor, minorities, etc. Such ignorance is doubly amusing; even as the faculty lounge radicals denounce the west, they fly off to the next conference to hobnob, network and schmooze with other "radicals" at an upscale hotel, their tab picked up by their academic employer. These "radicals"--they're really just careerists, and transparently so--have given the left a bad name, and the left (whatever that means anymore) would be wise to excommunicate them.In conclusion, Ellis' book is highly recommended, as are his other works.