A little Thanksgiving LitCrit

I'm currently waiting for the crabmeat-stuffed haddock (or is it the other way around) to come out of the oven and the lobster risotto smells delicious on the stove! We're just having a small family dinner this year so I've spent most of the day reading waiting for the Criminal Minds marathon at 4. I can't stand the Westminister Dog Show or the Macy's parade and ABC and NBC have come up with these new, modern cartoons that AREN'T Charlie Brown or Frosty the Snowman, so I've got a half hour until serial killing and Matthew Gray Gubler's hair come on.

I read the NYT and Slate today and I thought I might visit asmainegoes.com, a forum for all things political in Maine. Admittedly, I'm not up on my Maine politics, but I like to see what most of these ordinary hard-working men and women think about their state and this is what I found: http://www.asmainegoes.com/content/occupy-aroostook. Okay, so you might be as annoyed as I am about another Occupy protest, especially one that seems more about counteracting the Tea Party or espousing the liberal agenda Obama won't take on and not about ending bank bailouts. (I like some other parts of the platform too, but let's not get into the nitty-gritty.)

First paragraph: "Prof. Alice Bolstridge is the organizer. She is a poet who taught Literary Theory, Creative Writing and American Lit at the Oklahoma State University. Literary theorist are academics who write and often speak in Litcritalian, an obscure dialect of English using familiar verbs drained of familiar meanings and neologisms meaning nothing at all. Litcriticians know almost nothing yet believe they have a unique understanding of everything."

Literary theory is frustrating. Agreed. Yes, many theorists write in this cryptic language that seems to rely upon its obscurity to both make meaning and display the intelligence of the author. Me: I appreciate lucidity and erudite insights. Indeed, I've spent many a post criticizing theory and theorists for the way in which they often obscure what they are actually talking about or seem more intent on displaying their own prowess the way a peacock flaunts its feathers. But this attack is ad hominem outrageous! What does Professor Bolstridge's background as a theorist (not to mention her success as a scholar of American Literature and Creative Writing) have to do with Occupy Aroostook? Professor Bolstridge has been remarkably clear in demands and even intimates her aspirations from the implementation of said demands, as you can read in the AMG post. The author writes a self-defeating argument. Okay, you disagree with her. Okay, maybe you don't need to take Occupy seriously (especially the one at Harvard). But why do you need to open with a personal attack in order to start a discourse of disagreement?