Rating: 
Summary: A book that does what it promises
Review: It recent years there seems to have developed a cottage industry of books denouncing the latest academic fashions and trends- from PC to Postmodernism, all of which seem to originate in the
" radicalisms" of the 60's. What makes Ellis's book different from the rest is that he manages to refute a whole host of absurd notions and theories with strong logical and lucid arguments; while not merely having to resort to petty polemics and Ad hominem attacks- the kinds of "arguments" his targets in this work frequently use.
Ellis examins the history of political correctness, whoose origns he finds in the 18th and 19th century German Romantic exultation of the " noble savage" along with their doctrines of cultural relativism and primitivism. The book then engages and refutes the PC scholars all of whom are classed as " race gender and class critics " who all in one form or another seek to impose a political Schematism on all works of art.
The book ,however, is not without it's problems. The fringe ideas of the likes of Peggy Macintosh, whom Ellis refutes are hardly mainstream, and his dismissal of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine Mackinnon( while perfectly sound) are hardly neccessary- as these thinkers are scarcely
dominant in the field of liteary studies. At times it would have been nice to see Ellis look at the more moderate and sound scholarship of the various critical schools under attack.
Nonetheless, this is very worthwhile book, and ought to be read by all of us who care not only for Literature but for what is happening in our culture and society in general.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent, but ultimately very sad
Review: This is an excellent book, but ultimately a very sad one. The shortcomings of contemporary 'literary' fads and fashions are identified and effectively countered, but that is likely to make very little difference in practice. Issues of Race, Class, and Gender are of enormous importance in our society and they should be addressed using the most sophisticated professional means at our disposal. Literature departments, however, do not utilize the methods of analysis of the social and natural sciences and these issues are significantly elucidated through such methods. Instead, we have something much more akin to passionate advocacy than dispassionate analysis. For example, the fact that Ellis successfully demonstrates such things as palpable errors in logic will make no difference to advocates. They will respond by claiming that logic is a tool of oppression rather than an independent check on sloppy thinking. They have, in effect, so structured the 'debate' that objections to their positions will not be met with counter arguments or counter evidence, but by ad hominem attacks and allegations of racism, sexism, and so on. Rather than bring the full strengths of the academy to bear on issues of great importance, the discussion is politicized in ways that are quite familiar. What could be a reasoned discussion of an important issue becomes a shouting match between a James Carville and an Ann Coulter. Meetings which might be convened for the exchange of scholarly information become support sessions in which prejudices are confirmed and dissenting voices silenced. Rather than marshalling intellectual support, advocates marshal political support. This is very sad, not just because it undercuts the position and purposes of the academy, but because it precludes any analysis of important issues that might challenge prevailing orthodoxy. It is also sad because the viable alternatives to such practices (outliving the proponents, waiting for or even attempting to hasten the eventual exodus of students, deploring this state of affairs before the general public and funding sources) do damage to an enterprise that is inherently good and worthy.
| 
