Why You Be Hatin'?

Andrew O'Hehir, working for Salon.com, wrote a little review the other day of a book by Andrew Dalby. Things go along fine. O'Hehir offers up what, for him, seem to be the more academically salacious aspect of Darby's treatment of Homer's works: that "Homer" may have been a woman, that the works themselves may have been compositions collated from a long oral tradition, etc...

Like I said, things went well until he published his review. Then came the comments.

I like accuracy in writing, just as much as any other thinking person does. I don't want to waste my time reading crap...Although if I seek out the article, whose fault for crappiness is it?

Anyway, the comments, found here
immediately set out to point out exactly why the article should not have been written in the first place:

* no news...others have said that the ancient authors have been women

* Nagby from Harvard said it better and should be the final word

* "Academics" not affiliated with a university are suspect even before they are considered...which means they shouldn't be, honestly, considered...oh the nerve of the untenured...

and on and on...

Really, though, if someone is taking an interesting in textual criticism, don't shout them down...the Classics have enough to compete with without Ivory Tower types pouncing on every perceived fault.

It is like the English teacher who can't help correcting other people's grammar. It pisses everyone off to the point that the whole field is tainted by association.

Rant done. Agree?