i absolutely think that if your (pseudo)intellectualism relies on substituting rigorous engagement with / study of your subject of choice with distillations and oversimplifications, stripping the meaning that comes with grappling with challenging material away, then that is not real intellectual work. i see so much of this discourse when it comes to both difficult literature and dense theory, and it usually devolves into cryptically implying that a demographic isn't intelligent enough to grasp a work (this comes up so much with people who have never put in the effort to read communist theory implying that it's "too hard" for average working class people to read which is patently and historically untrue and this take is usually couched in racism/classism/etc.), complaining about barriers to entry (broadly speaking things get more complicated at deeper levels, this is not a radical or new take, i don't know what else to tell you about that one), and/or getting mad when people are catty on the internet about pseudointellectual posturing and taking it as a personal attack. there are many tools that can help deepen your understanding of a source—discussion groups, academic responses to a given work, secondary critical analyses, etc. are all legitimate tools in aiding you in this intellectual work, but they are NOT a SUBSTITUTION for grappling with the work! sometimes you are out of your depth and that is fine! i have trouble with difficult work all the time! rather than letting that paralyze me i believe wholeheartedly that one should sit in that difficulty and work towards understanding instead of dumbing it down. in other words i think if you're calling yourself a marxist you should probably be reading marx and if you're seriously interested in literary studies reading a genius dot com annotation of pale fire does not constitute rigorous study
turnnoffyourmind
stormborns
romaincrisis
tangentwithtanner
