This is honestly one of the most offensive and appalling books I've read. I've never seen a non-fiction text so perversely warped and self-contradictory in my life. Although the author claims to express diverse perspectives in terms of literary analysis, the vocabulary is chalk full of subtle ideological persuasion, directing the reader towards his own personal beliefs. This is all the more revolting as the author presents the idea of ideological persuasion, condemning it even while he commits the selfsame action. There are many criticisms I could make about this book, but this the most enervating.
This almost subliminal persuasion is most apparent in his particular choice of words. For example, using the words"obey" and "loyal" as opposed to "follow" and "firm", for the negative connotations the former bear. He uses them (ironically) to paint an individual as brainwashed by a system of beliefs which he wishes to depict as corrupt. He cites a hundred different theorists by name and portrays them as heroes, using positive or negatively connotative terms to shape the readers opinion to agree with him. Using the phrase "not uncontested", for instance, instead of simply "contested" or better yet"challenged" to describe contrasting opinions, designates roles in a hierarchy as both the former, again, bears negative connotations.
Moreover, he persistently includes the reader in his personal interpretation by his usage of the first-person plural pronoun, 'we'. It's always 'we' are like this, 'we' see the world as this. Who is this 'we'? Does the author think he can speak for me when he says 'we'? What authority gives him the right to say that? In short, his language is far from impartial, something which is unacceptable for such a text as this.
Other complaints about the text I have are Bertens idol worshiping, attribution of ideas to specific figures in history, insistence of SJW themes, pedantic use of theoretical jargon, and abstract manner of describing theories. Throughout the text you'll see name after name ad naseaum, supposed theorists associated with inventing ideas. Of course, an idea can't be invented, just as 'theorist' as a title is totally arbitrary, and the whole system of social and literary theory as a profession is nonsense, but Bertens maintains a steadfast adherence. He ascribes the idea that words are used to describe objects or the idea that story telling often follow a particular formula to specific people (from the 19th century no less)! This is more than just ridiculous, it's outright insulting. I came up with these same ideas just from my own experience and reasoning! Where's my accreditation?
This is just like when a person patented the wheel in 2001 as a "circular transportation facilitation device."
All this jargon and name citing seems pandering and lowly to me.
But even if these ideas came to you as new and astonishing, which they shouldn't if you have a functioning brain and even a little experience with classic art, it's impossible to get behind any of them since they're so poorly delineated. Bertens dwells in abstraction and uses metaphors and analogies instead of concrete examples.
It's all the same in the end because no person should have a serious reason to read this text unless it was assigned for a class. Everything in its pages could be ascertained by just reading literature and thinking about what you read. You don't need a certified thinker to tell you what or how to think, nor do you need to read this to know how to read fiction.