How to cultivate superior tone that would drive my opponents mads?

Plz list basic syllabus/required reading for becoming an obnoxious literary critic :)

My dear tron,

The basic required syllabus is simple enough. You must read the high-toned Introductions to at least 20 assorted classics that many more people know of than read, such as the Satyricon of Petronius, the poetry of Francois Villon and St. Theresa, The Tale of Genji by Lady Murasaki, the novels of Beckett, and perhaps On War by Clausewitz. Do not bother to read the entire texts. For extra credit you may scan a few pages of the original texts, but be sure to read every word of the Introductions.

From here on out you are equipped with the basics.

Now simply take an extreme position on the literary opinions expressed in these introductions, either pro or con. Whether in favor or against, insist that anyone who disagrees with you is insufficiently educated to appreciate the finer points of the work in question. It helps enormously to cross-reference Clausewitz while speaking of Villon, or adducing Petronius as corroboration of your views on Beckett.

If you wish to leave nothng to chance, read at least one 500 pp. tome on critical theory by somebody French. Do not fret if you do not understand it. Mine it for jargon, style, and attitude. Drop the name of the author frequently. Dismiss all other critics as frauds. Laugh haughtily when challenged on this.

There you have it. It will take you the better part of a month to do it thoroughly, but they say anything worth doing is worth doing well.

Latin and French tags. Liberal use of 'of course'. Stress importance of any given work. As Aimless has pointed out - a cherry-picked classical reference is of great use. Simliarly, be needlessly eclectic - if you are in danger of making a point through an analysis of accounts of the ill-fated 13th Century Pastoreaux exodus to Shoreham-by-Sea, quickly point out anagogical similarity in the films of Shane Meadows before changing focus to Claude imitations in 20th Century photography by way of counterpoint.

This displays your wide learning and your lack of academic stuffiness and at the same time your superiority to the herd. Readers' egos will benefit vicariously from your efforts in this sphere.

Use technical terms (for instance type and antitype) outside their technical sphere. Special points gained for being pedantic about the technical terms you are using.. eg 'Commonly misunderstood as...'

Use dictionary definitions and etymologically out-of-date versions of words. 'If we take the original meaning of ... then we see it means not ... but ...' - another form of random cherry picking.

Argument is to be used as an extension of personality - you are writing to impress the reader rather than illuminate same. A sort of baffled awe is what you are aiming for.

Highbrow newspaper reviewers may utilise 'tour de force' and 'magisterial' (when they're not sure whether they mean masterly or masterful). The reviewer's aim is to show what a good judge they are - speaking ex catherdra is the tone to be aimed for - rather than the more boring tasks of a brief description of book and its qualities.

If you have stolen a point from the work or works you are analysing or reviewing, silently pass it off as your own. If you have found something, no matter how randomly selected, that seems to you to be linked to what you are analysing, give a full bibliographical reference to the most obscure edition of that work (not necessarily the one you have read).

tron my dear boy, just read all my posts on ILX and take copious note of everything I have written.

I'm Spartacus!

snoball, this will not do the trick -- unless he speaks it through his nose while arching his eyebrows.

Reading Pound's Cantos takes a long time, but earmarking every 20-30 pages, then randomly underlining phrases should only take a couple minutes.

Good advice so far. Dropping in quotations might be useful, and an anthology will save a lot of reading. Probably best to find a slightly out-of-the-way compilation so that it doesn't look like you've just googled and c+ped something from brainyquote. I'd suggest the Faber book of Aphorisms, compiled by Auden and Louis Kronenberger.
(It's sort of an intriguing question taken almost seriously - if I woke up tomorrow, and my brain had been wiped of mainstream 'literary' knowledge, where would I start in order to participate in the world of Broadsheet/LRB/NYRB book discussion? It begs the question of whether that's worth doing, of course, but let's say I felt an urge to. I guess I'd be best reading a lot of post-war novels.)

Nobody's mentioned the liberal use of quotation marks around perfectly simple "words," thus calling them into "question."

Also, call things exemplary, but don't mention what they are exemplary of.

Do as the French do: invert hierarchies. Pick something of known worth, and another thing of lesser worth, and write as though everyone has realized that B is actually better than A.

Remember: the more tendentious an opinion, the more it must be passed off as received wisdom, whereas the more common and reasonable a view, the more it must be fenced off as suspicious, extreme special pleading.

Like it, alimosina.

Faux modesty and pseudo humilities to show that you are only human are good as well.

If you are arguing in person, punctuate you discourse at this point with a little self-deprecating laugh and a self-satisfied simper.

Do as the French do: invert hierarchies. Pick something of known worth, and another thing of lesser worth, and write as though everyone has realized that B is actually better than A = hand-dived challops

Believing you have opponents is a great first step!

Reading Pound's Cantos takes a long time, but earmarking every 20-30 pages, then randomly underlining phrases should only take a couple minutes.

― silence dogood, Monday, November 10, 2008 7:16 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark

lol this is an awesome post

Buy this:

http://www.amazon.com/Talk-About-Books-Havent-Read/dp/1596914696

whether you read it is up to you.