THE ORIGIN OF FECES

by James Lincoln Warren

In the current climate of pervasive argument — endemic, I know, in an election year — it is appropriate to examine some of the schools of critical thought that are shaping the future. I am fortunate in being married to a critical theorist, M. P. Warren, who not only has shed considerable light on these new and useful methods, but has provided them with convenient labels. She became aware of the first two schools when she was studying literature in university, prompted by the question, “What hole was this stupid idea pulled out of?”

Procrustes, familiar epithet of one of Theseus’ adversaries on his journey from Troezen to Athens, also known as Damastes, Polypemon, and perhaps Procoptas. He was a brigand who lived between Eleusis and Athens. Having overcome his victims he would force them to lie down on a bed, or on one of two beds; if they were too short, he would hammer them out or rack them with weights to fit the longer bred, if too tall he would cut them to fit the shorter. Theseus disposed of him in like manner.

— The Oxford Classical Dictionary

The Procustean School tortures the facts to fit the theory. An example of this is the theory espoused in a movie a few years ago that Ludwig van Beethoven’s “Immortal Beloved”, the object of three love letters written by him (and sometimes viewed as an analog to Shakespeare’s mysterious “Dark Lady”), was actually his sister-in-law Johanna, with whom he engaged in a bitter custody battle over his nephew Karl. Beethoven’s contempt for Johanna is very well documented — he even went so far as to call her the “Königin der Nacht” (“Queen of the Night”) after the murderous mother in Mozart’s opera “Die Zauberflöte” (“The Magic Flute”). You will also frequently encounter this school whenever anyone uses lots of byzantine statistics.

‘There’s glory for you!’

‘I don’t know what you mean by “glory,” ’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ‘Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!” ’

‘But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument,” ’ Alice objected.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you CAN make words mean so many different things.’

— Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The Humpty Dumpty School ignores what words actually mean in favor of what the user wants them to mean in order to support his thesis. Examples of this are the old Strategic Air Command motto, “Peace Is Our Business” — here “peace” was redefined to mean “threat of nuclear annihilation” — and a disbarred California attorney’s invention of “totem-pole hearsay”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, regarded by the California Supreme Court as “a recurring term of art in [the attorney’s] own private lexicon.” A common contemporary occurrence of Humpty-Dumptyism is the use of the word “decadent” to mean “luxurious”, most frequently applied to chocolate desserts — the OED defines decadent as ” … in a state of decay or decline; falling off or deteriorating from a prior condition of excellence, vitality, prosperity, etc.” In other words, decadent food is rot.

Unwilling to rest on her laurels, M. P. has recently identified two new powerful critical schools.

The first of these is Critical Fundamentalism, or the Dogma of Personal Infallibility. The foundation of this school may be expressed as, “I am always right. Therefore, you’re wrong.” The sublime beauty of this school is that it requires no evidence whatsoever to justify its conclusions, because the only “fact” that needs be recognized is the central thesis of the practitioner’s own infallibility. After one accepts this premise, other facts are clearly irrelevant. It is a favorite among ultra right-wing radio talk show hosts.

Finally, we have the Burger King School. This very elastic school believes that ALL personally held beliefs are valid, or more accurately, that no one opinion can be superior to any other. The beauty of the BK School is that any idea you come up with is therefore correct, even if everybody else disagrees. (You can see that while it may seem to be the very opposite of the Fundamentalist School, the end result is the same.) Its presence is frequently heralded by the phrase, “Well, you’re entitled to your opinion”, delivered in as smug a manner as possible.

This is not merely an agreement to disagree, not merely an acceptance of different interpretations of mutually recognized facts. Quite the contrary, it is a refusal to consider anybody else’s point at all, by sloughing it off as “just their opinion”.

I have detected the BK School in various writers groups when the participants criticize each others’ work. “I didn’t like this passage in your story,” is a frequent comment, very infrequently followed by any justification other than, “I just don’t think it works.” To avoid hurt feelings, the critic will then say, “But it’s up to you, of course. You’re the one who wrote it.” As if there were any question to the contrary.

I’m sure that in the fullness of time, M. P. will discover other innovative and exciting critical methods, and when she does, I will be here to share them with you as we explore The Origin of Feces.