So my biggest problem with the whole #DisruptTexts thing isn't their treatment of "the canon" (whatever that means) but their literary theory.

It turns every book into an echo chamber.

Traditional literary theory sees a book carrying a certain purpose, a message, engagement with certain themes and ideas.

T.S. Eliot believed that great authors introduced readers to ideas themselves, and we as readers are to engage with those ideas.

#DisruptTexts, however, relies upon what we'd call "critical" literary theory.

In this case, a book becomes an artifact and we read to interrogate and learn about the time/culture in which it was written. As Foucault would have it, reading becomes more like archeology.

There's a time and a place for this surely, especially if we're doing a historical analysis.

Unfortunately, when this literary approach is adopted within a progressive mindset, then every book reinforces the same message. Each book becomes a modicum to the same progressive ideas

Missed then are the important messages about love or familial conflict in Romeo and Juliet to instead talk about race, class, or gender.

Missed are the messages about heroism and bravery in the Odyssey to talk about... race, class, or gender.

Again and again with every book

Race, class, and gender are important issues worth addressing but maybe we should read books that have something definitive to say about them instead of mining these messages out of books that are indifferent to them.

Read Invisible Man instead of "interrogating" Tolstoy

We should read books to challenge our own thoughts. Critical theory insulates us from the intellectual challenge as we explain away any difference of opinion with literary theory.

It ignores what the author has to say to instead foist one worldview upon every book.