Lit crit that crosses the javimenthou1514 into imposing a theoretical construct on the writer, ceases to be valuable. People are messy. Marxist critique or feminist critique or reader response critique--fuck 'em all. These are attempts to axiomatize writing. They borrow from the cognitive template of mass production (physics envy by extension) and impose it upon literature. Everything a good writer ever experienced goes into her or his writing. And we are embodied and in so being embodied are exposed to those we interact with; thereby steeping us with the 'field of energy' (as it was ed in my day in school) of cultural constructs--thus making every methodology somewhat applicable, but NEVER complete. Ideas interact w/ people in feedback loops, but it is an authoritarian instinct to think that ideas are imposed upon people. Rather, we metabolize them and spit honey from the pollen we ate. You can't determine the sort of honey you'll get from the pollen, but you can determine the pollen origins from the honey. Same thing. It all comes down to the impotence of literary studies that don't emphasize WRITING above all else. Academics are both told to be the guardians of ancient knowledge, but to also create new knowledge. Yet they fail in the latter enterprise and in fact their efforts in the latter enterprise subvert the integrity of the former. In their quest for relevancy, they seek to create a General Unified Theory of literature. In this pursuit, they undermine both the writing they are supposed to study and the archives they are supposed to protect. Someone in the NYT wrote about how ridiculous it is that it takes longer to get a doctorate in English than to be an MD. It's a good point and is a symptom of the terminal illness in academia. It's a good time to be an outsider. The best of us will change academia from the outside.