June 22, 2025 - English Studies

“Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser: A Critical Analysis

“Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser first appeared in 1980 as part of his poetry collection Sure Signs: New and Selected Poems.

Introduction: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

“Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser first appeared in 1980 as part of his poetry collection Sure Signs: New and Selected Poems. The poem is a poignant example of narrative through objects, using everyday remnants of life to tell the story of a vanished family. Its central ideas revolve around loss, abandonment, and the quiet narratives embedded in rural American life. The poem personifies inanimate objects—the “Bible with a broken back,” the “sandbox made from a tractor tire,” and the “toys… like branches after a storm”—to reconstruct the lives of the absent figures. Its popularity stems from Kooser’s ability to evoke an entire emotional history through sparse imagery and indirect narration, letting readers piece together the untold story. As the closing lines suggest, “Something went wrong, they say,” the poem’s power lies in the unresolved mystery and the haunting echo of human presence through silent evidence.

Text: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

He was a big man, says the size of his shoes

on a pile of broken dishes by the house;

a tall man too, says the length of the bed

in an upstairs room; and a good, God-fearing man,

says the Bible with a broken back

on the floor below the window, dusty with sun;

but not a man for farming, say the fields

cluttered with boulders and the leaky barn.

A woman lived with him, says the bedroom wall

papered with lilacs and the kitchen shelves

covered with oilcloth, and they had a child,

says the sandbox made from a tractor tire.

Money was scarce, say the jars of plum preserves

and canned tomatoes sealed in the cellar hole.

And the winters cold, say the rags in the window frames.

It was lonely here, says the narrow country road.

Something went wrong, says the empty house

in the weed-choked yard. Stones in the fields

say he was not a farmer; the still-sealed jars

in the cellar say she left in a nervous haste.

And the child? Its toys are strewn in the yard

like branches after a storm—a rubber cow,

a rusty tractor with a broken plow,

a doll in overalls. Something went wrong, they say.

Annotations: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

Stanza	Annotation (Simple English)	Literary Devices Used
Stanza 1“He was a big man…”	This stanza tells us about the man who lived in the farmhouse. We learn about him through objects left behind—his big shoes, a long bed, a Bible, broken dishes, and poor farmland. He was likely religious and tall, but not good at farming.	– Personification: Objects “say” things- Imagery: Visual clues (shoes, bed, Bible, fields)- Irony: God-fearing but failed at farming- Symbolism: Bible = faith, leaky barn = failure
Stanza 2“A woman lived with him…”	This stanza shifts to the woman. The house decorations (wallpaper, shelves) suggest her presence. A child also lived there, shown by a sandbox. Food jars and rags in windows tell us money was tight and winters were harsh. The lonely country road hints at their isolation.	– Symbolism: Lilac wallpaper = attempt at beauty/love; canned goods = hard times- Imagery: Visual (sandbox, jars, rags)- Mood: Loneliness and poverty- Personification: Objects again “say” what happened
Stanza 3“Something went wrong…”	This stanza reveals that something tragic or troubling happened. The house is empty, toys are scattered as if people left suddenly. The jars remain sealed—perhaps the woman left quickly. The scattered toys suggest a sudden departure, leaving the child’s world behind.	– Foreshadowing: “Something went wrong” builds suspense- Symbolism: Toys = lost innocence; sealed jars = unfinished plans- Simile: “like branches after a storm” compares toy scattering to destruction- Tone: Mysterious and somber

Literary And Poetic Devices: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

🔤 Device	💬 Example from the Poem	📘 Explanation
🔁 Alliteration	“Bible with a broken back”	Repeats the “b” sound for rhythm and emphasis.
🎵 Assonance	“rags in the window frames”	Repetition of vowel sounds softens the tone.
🧠 Connotation	“leaky barn”	Implies hardship and failure without direct statement.
⚖️ Contrast	“God-fearing man” vs. “not a man for farming”	Shows a contradiction between spiritual faith and practical struggle.
⏩ Enjambment	“He was a big man, says the size of his shoes / on a pile of broken dishes…”	Allows the poem to flow like natural speech or thought.
🔮 Foreshadowing	“Something went wrong”	Builds suspense and suggests an ominous event occurred.
🆓 Free Verse	Entire poem	Lacks regular rhyme or meter, mimicking natural narrative.
🔄 Hyperbaton (Inversion)	“says the size of his shoes”	Changes normal word order for stylistic effect.
🖼️ Imagery	“sandbox made from a tractor tire”	Creates a vivid visual of rural, improvised life.
🎭 Irony	“a good, God-fearing man”… “not a man for farming”	Highlights a gap between faith and worldly failure.
🧷 Juxtaposition	*

Themes: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

🏚️ 1. Abandonment and Loss: A central theme of “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser is the quiet but haunting presence of abandonment. The poem’s setting—a deserted home overtaken by nature—speaks volumes through lines like “Something went wrong,” and “the empty house in the weed-choked yard.” These clues suggest that the family left abruptly and under troubling circumstances. The child’s toys “strewn in the yard like branches after a storm” reinforce the emotional impact of the loss. Through the voice of abandoned objects, the poem conveys not just physical desertion, but emotional and social disconnection, turning absence into a form of quiet tragedy.

👪 2. Family and Domestic Life: “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser subtly constructs a picture of a small, close-knit family using ordinary domestic details. We learn that “a woman lived with him,” and that “they had a child,” not through people’s voices, but through remnants like lilac wallpaper, oilcloth on shelves, and a sandbox made from a tractor tire. These artifacts of daily life reveal a woman’s effort to create warmth and beauty, and a child’s simple joys. This theme reflects the emotional depth hidden in mundane details, suggesting that even the most modest rural household holds complex, unspoken stories of care, effort, and connection.

💰 3. Poverty and Struggle: Economic hardship runs beneath the surface of “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser, emerging through visual and tactile details. Lines like “money was scarce, say the jars of plum preserves” and “the leaky barn” paint a picture of persistent struggle. The man’s failure at farming—“say the fields cluttered with boulders”—speaks to both personal limitation and the harshness of rural life. The rags stuffed in the window frames to keep out cold wind show how the family coped with limited resources. Together, these details depict a life marked by resilience amid hardship, and the quiet toll of poverty on hopes and plans.

🌾 4. The Voice of Objects / Storytelling Through Things: A unique and powerful element in “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser is its narrative technique, where inanimate objects “speak” the story. The repetition of “says the…” gives agency to shoes, jars, fields, and toys. This personification allows the reader to reconstruct a narrative from what’s left behind. For example, the “Bible with a broken back” reveals the man’s faith, while the “still-sealed jars” suggest a sudden, unplanned departure. Through this poetic device, Kooser demonstrates how material objects carry memory, meaning, and emotional truth, telling stories that humans leave untold.

Literary Theories and “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

📚 Literary Theory	💬 Poem Reference	📘 Application to Abandoned Farmhouse
🧠 Psychoanalytic Theory	“Something went wrong, says the empty house”“still-sealed jars in the cellar”	This theory explores unconscious fears, repressed trauma, and internal conflict. The man’s failure, the woman’s hurried departure, and the scattered toys suggest hidden psychological distress and family breakdown. The sealed jars can symbolize suppressed emotions or unresolved past events.
🧺 Marxist Theory	“Money was scarce, say the jars of plum preserves”“leaky barn,” “rags in the window frames”	A Marxist reading focuses on economic struggle and class. The family’s poverty is central—seen in their attempt to preserve food, insulate windows, and live with a collapsing barn. The poem critiques how working-class families are often left behind, unable to sustain themselves economically.
🏞️ Ecocriticism	“the weed-choked yard,” “fields cluttered with boulders”	Ecocriticism analyzes the relationship between humans and nature. The poem presents a failed attempt to live off the land—fields resist cultivation, nature slowly reclaims the farmhouse. It reflects human vulnerability against environmental forces and the land’s refusal to cooperate, leading to abandonment.
👓 New Criticism / Formalism	Repetition of “says the…”, use of personification and imagery	Formalist analysis focuses on structure, language, and literary devices. The poem’s meaning is built through form: personification of objects tells the story, imagery reveals emotions, and repetition builds rhythm and theme. Every clue is internal—no external context is needed to understand the emotional arc.

Critical Questions about “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

❓1. What role does personification play in shaping the narrative of “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser?

Personification is the core narrative device in “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser, transforming lifeless objects into storytellers. Rather than using a human speaker, Kooser allows items such as shoes, a Bible, and children’s toys to “speak” about the absent characters. Phrases like “says the size of his shoes” and “says the Bible with a broken back” invite readers to construct the family’s history from material clues. This strategy turns the farmhouse into a silent witness, encouraging readers to engage in detective-like reading. The objects don’t just decorate the setting—they narrate it, evoking mystery, emotion, and a sense of haunting absence.

❓2. How does “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser use imagery to develop tone?

“Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser employs vivid and concrete imagery to develop a tone of quiet sorrow and mystery. Descriptions like “the weed-choked yard,” “rags in the window frames,” and “toys… like branches after a storm” create stark visual impressions of decay and emotional disruption. This sensory language draws the reader into a physical space that feels worn, forgotten, and full of unanswered questions. By letting images imply rather than explain, Kooser maintains a subtle, respectful distance from his subjects, allowing the reader to feel the quiet weight of abandonment and loss without melodrama.

❓3. What does “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser suggest about rural American life?

Through its focus on physical remnants and domestic detail, “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser offers a window into the hardship, isolation, and fragility of rural American life. The man is “not a man for farming,” and the barn is leaky, fields rocky—suggesting a failed attempt to survive off the land. Lines like “money was scarce” and “the winters cold” reflect both economic and environmental struggles. Yet there is tenderness in the woman’s decorating and the child’s handmade sandbox, which signal care amidst hardship. The poem captures both the resilience and vulnerability of working-class rural families.

❓4. Why is the line “Something went wrong” repeated in “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser?

The repeated line “Something went wrong” in “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser acts as a refrain that ties together the clues scattered throughout the poem. It is a powerful moment of emotional recognition—an acknowledgment that the quiet story unfolding through objects is one of disruption, possibly tragedy. This phrase frames the entire poem, suggesting that despite the surface calm and quiet, a deeper narrative of personal collapse or family disintegration lies beneath. The ambiguity of the line invites interpretation: did poverty break the family apart, did someone die, or did mental illness or violence play a role? The repetition leaves readers in a thoughtful state of unresolved reflection.

Literary Works Similar to “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

🏡 “The House on the Hill” by Edwin Arlington Robinson
Similarity: Both poems explore themes of abandonment and nostalgia, using imagery of deserted homes to suggest lost lives and faded memories.
📦 “Those Winter Sundays” by Robert Hayden
Similarity: Like Kooser’s work, this poem reflects on unsaid family stories and the emotional weight of domestic spaces, emphasizing sacrifice and silence through details.
🌾 “After Apple-Picking” by Robert Frost
Similarity: Uses rural imagery and symbolic labor to express inner struggle and fatigue, similar to how Kooser depicts the man’s failure as a farmer through visual clues.

🧸 “My Papa’s Waltz” by Theodore Roethke
Similarity: Both poems rely on concrete objects and domestic scenes to reveal deeper emotional layers within family dynamics, leaving much unsaid.
👢 “Digging” by Seamus Heaney
Similarity: This poem also centers on memory, inheritance, and rural labor, using physical detail (a spade, soil) to explore personal and generational identity, like Kooser’s use of farming imagery.

Representative Quotations of “Abandoned Farmhouse” by Ted Kooser

🔖 Quotation	🧭 Context	📘 Explanation	🧠 Theoretical Perspective
“He was a big man, says the size of his shoes”	Opening line of the poem	Begins the story by letting objects describe the man, implying physical stature and presence.	New Criticism – Focus on textual clues for character portrayal
“a good, God-fearing man, says the Bible with a broken back”	Describes the man’s moral identity	The Bible symbolizes faith, but its broken spine may imply spiritual wear or struggle.	Psychoanalytic Theory – Suggests conflict between inner belief and life conditions
“but not a man for farming, say the fields cluttered with boulders”	Juxtaposition to his good intentions	Reveals practical failure despite spiritual strength, symbolized through nature’s resistance.	Marxist Theory – Highlights economic failure and class struggle
“A woman lived with him, says the bedroom wall papered with lilacs”	Introduces the woman through domestic detail	Suggests femininity, care, and an attempt to bring beauty into a hard life.	Feminist Theory – Focus on the woman’s silent labor and identity
“and they had a child, says the sandbox made from a tractor tire”	Depicts the child’s presence	Improvised toy reveals creativity in hardship and a family’s love.	Ecocriticism – Shows adaptation to environment using natural/industrial remnants
“Money was scarce, say the jars of plum preserves”	Describes the family’s economic condition	Preserved food hints at both thrift and anxiety about survival.	Marxist Theory – Underscores poverty and domestic labor’s value
“the winters cold, say the rags in the window frames”	Reflects physical hardship	Resourceful insulation shows struggle and suffering in silence.	Sociological Theory – Suggests resilience under poor living conditions
“Something went wrong, says the empty house”	A key turning point in the narrative	Introduces the idea of crisis or tragedy without explanation, creating mystery.	Psychoanalytic Theory – Points to trauma or disruption beneath the surface
“a doll in overalls”	One of the child’s abandoned toys	Evokes innocence, gender ambiguity, and sudden interruption of childhood.	Gender Theory – Challenges norms through gender-neutral imagery
“like branches after a storm”	Describes scattered toys	Powerful simile suggesting sudden destruction and emotional wreckage.	Structuralism – Emphasizes metaphor and symbol as narrative structures

“Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice: Summary and Critique

“Disgusting Bullshit” by Jenny Rice first appeared in Rhetoric Society Quarterly in 2015 (Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 468–472).

Introduction: “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

“Disgusting Bullshit” by Jenny Rice first appeared in Rhetoric Society Quarterly in 2015 (Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 468–472). This short but incisive essay explores the rhetorical dimensions of “bullshit,” expanding on Harry Frankfurt’s influential definition to examine its broader consequences in public discourse. Rice reframes bullshit not merely as a lack of concern for truth, but as an active obstruction—a rhetorical blockage that stifles mutuality, dialogue, and response. Drawing analogies from earwax impaction to public health debates like anti-vaccination rhetoric, she argues that bullshit calcifies discourse in ways that prevent reciprocal understanding and critical engagement. The piece situates rhetorical blockage as a matter of ethical concern, moving beyond the philosophical preoccupation with truth to address how bullshit disables the “call and response” structure fundamental to rhetorical ethics. Influenced by theorists such as Julia Kristeva (on disgust), Sara Ahmed (on the politics of emotion), and Michael Hyde (on rhetorical conscience), Rice ultimately proposes that disgust itself might serve as a rhetorical tactic—a visceral refusal of the unacceptable. Her work is significant in literary and rhetorical theory for its innovative reframing of discourse ethics, especially in an era where emotional manipulation and strategic obfuscation increasingly shape public rhetoric.

Summary of “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🧠 1. Bullshit as Disconnected from Belief

Frankfurt’s theory frames bullshit as “a lack of concern for truth” rather than lying (p. 468).
Bullshit is a rhetorical action focused on achieving a goal, not on expressing belief:

“For the bullshitter, what matters is whether or not his or her goal is accomplished” (p. 468).

Rice illustrates this through a student who writes “This answer is bullshit” as a quiz response—possibly bluffing, possibly rejecting the question’s premise (p. 468).

🧱 2. Bullshit as Rhetorical Blockage

Rice introduces the metaphor of blockage—bullshit congeals discourse, obstructing rhetorical flow.

Describes the anti-vaccine movement as an example of this blockage, where pro-vaccination messages paradoxically deepen resistance:

“Bullshit might also be imagined as a blockage… most relevant to those of us interested in discourses that become calcified” (p. 469).

Uses earwax impaction as analogy: rhetorical deafness caused by hardened bullshit (p. 469).

🤢 3. The Aesthetics of Disgust

Rice invokes Julia Kristeva’s Powers of Horror to explain disgust as a response to blocked flow:

“I experience a gagging sensation… the body, provoke tears and bile” (Kristeva qtd. p. 470).

Disgust arises not just from what is blocked, but from the unnatural presence of the blockage itself.

🔇 4. Bullshit Silences Mutual Exchange

Rhetoric, according to Rice, is marked by “porousness”—an openness to being changed in dialogue.
Bullshit halts this possibility:

“Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (p. 470).

James Fredal is cited:

“Bullshit happens… when one side of a dialogue is unjustly disregarded” (p. 470).

🧱 5. Bullshit’s Danger Lies in Its Ethical Obstruction, Not Factual Inaccuracy

Frankfurt cares about truth, but Rice argues rhetoricians should worry about blockage of ethical response:

“Any attempts to question, engage, or respond… are obstructed by this layer of hardened desire” (p. 471).

🤮 6. Disgust as a Rhetorical Strategy

Disgust may be a productive rhetorical tactic, highlighting how bullshit can only be addressed on its own aesthetic terms:

“Disgust is a refusal to accept the blockage… a response that exploits blockage as fundamentally unacceptable” (p. 471).

Connects to David Hume’s theory:

“All sentiment is right… because sentiment has a reference to nothing beyond itself” (Hume qtd. p. 471).

📢 7. Response as Ethical Imperative in Rhetoric

The real challenge of bullshit isn’t philosophical—it’s ethical and rhetorical.
Citing Michael Hyde’s The Call of Conscience, Rice emphasizes:

“We are bound to hear the call within the context of our everyday being-with-others” (Hyde qtd. p. 472).

Rhetoricians must strive to maintain the possibility of response, even when faced with obstruction.

💬 8. Final Anecdote: The Bullshit Answer Revisited

Revisiting the student’s quiz answer, Rice suggests the gesture was not deception but revulsion—a rejection of a system that silences real voice:

“Gagging on the quiz, maybe on the waxy surface of quizzes in general… trying to be heard in yet another professor’s impacted eardrum” (p. 472).

📚 Key References Cited in the Article

Frankfurt, H. G. On Bullshit (2005)
Kristeva, J. Powers of Horror (1982)
Fredal, J. “Rhetoric and Bullshit” in College English (2011)
Hyde, M. J. The Call of Conscience (2001)
Ahmed, S. The Cultural Politics of Emotion (2013)
Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) (2008)

Hume, D. “Of the Standard of Taste” in The Rhetorical Tradition (2001)
Nyhan, B. et al., “Effective Messages in Vaccine Promotion” in Pediatrics (2014)

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🔑 Theoretical Term	🧠 Explanation	📖 Reference
Bullshit (Frankfurtian)	Based on Harry Frankfurt’s theory, bullshit refers to speech unconcerned with truth, oriented instead toward persuasion, manipulation, or goal achievement without regard for factual accuracy. The speaker may not be lying but simply doesn’t care whether the claim is true or false.	Rice (2015) explains, “According to Frankfurt, belief in the discourse of bullshit is relatively insignificant… what matters is whether or not his or her goal is accomplished” (p. 468).
Rhetorical Blockage	Rice argues that bullshit acts as a form of discursive blockage, not merely poor reasoning but an obstruction that disrupts rhetorical exchange and prevents mutual engagement or ethical response.	“Bullshit might also be imagined as a blockage… relevant to those of us interested in discourses that become calcified in the arteries of the public sphere” (Rice, 2015, p. 469).
Porousness	This refers to the openness of rhetoric to dialogic exchange and transformation. True rhetorical interaction involves a vulnerability that allows beliefs to be changed. Bullshit, by contrast, resists this openness.	“Rhetoric… has an air of permeability and porousness… yet bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Cognitive Dissonance	Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs. Bullshit often emerges as a coping mechanism to resolve this tension by rejecting or distorting inconvenient truths.	Rice draws on Tavris and Aronson: “In order to reduce the tension, we must eliminate one of the cognitions… by dismissing it as untrue” (Rice, 2015, p. 469).
Cerumen Impaction	A metaphor Rice uses to describe how bullshit blocks rhetorical listening, similar to how wax blocks hearing in the ear. It symbolizes how bullshit prevents people from “hearing” counter-arguments or dissenting voices.	“Bullshit’s impaction is arguably a disgusting blockage of rhetorical eardrums” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Disgust (Kristevan)	Borrowing from Julia Kristeva, Rice presents disgust as a response to congealed, stagnant matter that blocks flow—both literally and rhetorically. Disgust becomes a metaphor for confronting bullshit’s impassable presence.	“Blockages themselves are so frequently cause for disgust” and Kristeva’s description of milk skin illustrates this metaphor: “I experience a gagging sensation…” (Rice, 2015, p. 470).
Sentimental Aesthetics	Rice connects bullshit with sentiment-driven discourse—rhetoric that is persuasive through feeling rather than fact. Logical refutation fails because bullshit is based on aesthetic appeal rather than rational proof.	“Bullshit discourse is itself rooted in a sentimental aesthetics… all sentiment is right… but all determinations of the understanding are not right” (Hume qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 471).
Arrogant Disregard	This concept, drawn from James Fredal, describes how bullshit stems from a dismissal of dialogic norms—where one participant believes they’re too powerful or skilled to engage cooperatively, shutting down rhetorical reciprocity.	“Bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard” where “one party… feels superior enough… to dispense with the rituals of cooperative interaction” (Fredal qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 470).

Contribution of “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice to Literary Theory/Theories

📢 1. Contribution to Rhetorical Theory

Reframes bullshit as a rhetorical phenomenon rather than simply a philosophical or epistemological concern.

Moves beyond Harry Frankfurt’s focus on truth and deception to examine how bullshit functions as a disruption in rhetorical ethics and exchange.
Rice writes:

“Whereas Frankfurt and his fellow philosophers debate the exact composition of bullshit, bullshit’s response is a particularly unique problem for rhetoric” (p. 472).

Introduces “response” and “porousness” as defining rhetorical values that are obstructed by bullshit, making rhetorical blockage the core issue.

🎭 2. Contribution to Affect Theory

Uses disgust as an aesthetic and rhetorical affect—not just a physical reaction but a meaningful mode of refusal.
Incorporates Julia Kristeva’s theory of abjection (Powers of Horror) to explain the revulsion felt toward rhetorical blockages:

“Blockages themselves are so frequently cause for disgust… provoke tears and bile, increase heartbeat” (Kristeva qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 470).

Disgust becomes a strategic emotional response to unethical or manipulative discourse.

🧱 3. Contribution to Critical Discourse Theory

Applies discourse theory to institutional and public communication (e.g., anti-vaccine rhetoric), showing how bullshit calcifies argument and prevents productive deliberation.
Example: Parents reject pro-vaccination information not because they disbelieve it, but because it increases cognitive dissonance—leading them to dismiss it emotionally and rhetorically (p. 469).

Rice explains that:

“Information about the benefits of vaccinations and the belief in their harm cannot easily co-exist” (p. 469).

🗣️ 4. Contribution to Dialogic Theory

Echoes Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of dialogism by emphasizing how rhetoric requires openness to others—bullshit blocks that reciprocity.
Describes bullshit as a violation of mutual rhetorical exchange:

“Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (p. 470).

Draws on Michael Hyde’s idea of the “call of conscience” as the basis of ethical dialogic engagement:

“We are bound to hear the call within the context of our everyday being-with-others” (Hyde qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 472).

🎨 5. Contribution to Aesthetic Theory

Challenges rationalist aesthetics by exploring how bullshit thrives through sentimentality, appealing not to truth but to affect, surface, and cleverness.

Connects this to David Hume’s notion that sentiment has no external referent and thus resists rebuttal:

“All sentiment is right… always real… but all determinations of the understanding are not” (Hume qtd. in Rice, 2015, p. 471).

Proposes that aesthetic responses like revulsion may be more rhetorically effective than rational argument against bullshit.

🧠 6. Contribution to Ethical Literary Criticism

Rice reorients attention from what bullshit is to how we respond to it, linking literary/rhetorical ethics to the conditions of response.
This aligns with a broader movement in literary theory that focuses on responsibility, voice, and engagement rather than abstract judgment.
She notes:

“Conditions of response—creating the ongoing possibility of responding to every call—is precisely the work for rhetoric” (p. 472).

🚪 7. Contribution to Post-Structuralism

Implicitly engages with post-structuralist ideas of instability and blockage in language, but pushes further by theorizing why discourse fails—not because of language itself, but because of willful obstruction.
Rice’s metaphor of bullshit as a “fatty buildup” critiques the closure of meaning-making spaces, offering a more materialist view of rhetorical dysfunction (p. 469–470).

🧰 8. Contribution to Pedagogical Theory

Uses classroom experience to theorize the limits of conventional assessment, where even a student’s ironic answer may reveal more rhetorical insight than standardized expectations allow.

Reflects:

“His response—‘This answer is bullshit’—seemed to not be a particularly strong example of bluffing… but a rejection of what was, by all accounts, a bullshit question” (p. 472).

Examples of Critiques Through “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

📘 Literary Work	🎯 Core Theme	💣 Bullshit as Rhetorical Blockage	🤢 Disgust & Sentimentality	📖 Critical Insight Using Rice
🇮🇳 Operation Fox-Hunt by Siddhartha Thorat	RAW-led tactical excellence vs. cross-border terror	Constructs an invincible Indian military narrative; Pakistani actors are demonized, blocking any dialogic or ethical nuance in conflict representation.	The novel wraps military actions in sentimental glorification, promoting awe over inquiry and reducing space for critique.	Rice argues, “Bullshit… blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness” (2015, p. 470)—the novel blocks mutuality between conflicting narratives.
🕵️ The Karachi Deception by Shatrujeet Nath	Covert strike mission into Pakistan	Strategic ambiguity is masked by action-thriller conventions; bullshit as narrative smokescreen that blocks reflection on geopolitical complexity.	Evokes disgust for the enemy but admiration for mission success—aesthetic performance replaces moral deliberation.	Rice’s notion that “bullshit is rooted in sentimental aesthetics” (p. 471) helps critique how the novel frames violence through stylized admiration.
🔥 Operation Hellfire by Siddhartha Thorat	Retaliation against state-backed terror	Repeats a closed-loop narrative of revenge and justice, foreclosing any critical engagement with war ethics or cross-border entanglements.	Sentimentality shields Indian military action from critique, appealing to national pride as unquestionable truth.	Like Rice’s “cerumen impaction” (p. 469), the novel clogs space for listening to other perspectives under the weight of patriotic performance.
🧨 Operation Jinnah by Shiv Aroor	RAW vs. ISI espionage battle	The narrative reinforces India’s moral superiority; bullshit as moral absolutism oversimplifies the grey zones of espionage and national conflict.	Pakistan is evil; India is righteous. Binary sentiment replaces porous debate, channeling revulsion into superiority.	Rice notes that “bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard” (p. 470)—a dynamic clearly mirrored in the novel’s framing of India–Pakistan dynamics.
🏔️ The Himalayan Gambit by Rajesh K. Singh	High-altitude warfare in Kashmir	Overplays India’s defensive purity; narrative blocks space for Kashmiri agency or voices, presenting conflict as a two-player chessboard.	Emotional reverence for soldiers overshadows lived suffering in conflict zones—valor sentimentality replaces ethical discomfort.	Rice’s metaphor of blockage (pp. 469–470) critiques how conflict is presented without allowing for transformative dialogue or ethical discomfort.
👤 The Black Widow by Rishi Gupta	Feminist spy vs. Pakistan-linked terror cell	Feminist empowerment is aligned with nationalist ideals, creating a performative patriotism that uses identity politics to deflect critical questioning.	Disgust is weaponized—aimed at villains and moral corruption, not systems—sentiment replaces structural critique.	Rice’s claim that “bullshit… is a blockage of rhetorical eardrums” (p. 470) applies here: the narrative silences deeper critique by using identity as moral justification.

Criticism Against “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice

🎯 1. Overextension of the Metaphor of “Blockage”

Rice’s use of bodily and physiological metaphors (earwax, milk skin, arterial clogging) may be seen as overwrought or excessively figurative.
Critics might argue these metaphors obscure clarity, making rhetorical analysis feel anecdotal or performative rather than rigorous.

The metaphor of “cerumen impaction” (p. 469) risks trivializing complex discursive dysfunctions through sensational imagery.

📏 2. Lack of Clear Methodological Framework

The essay reads more like a philosophical meditation or personal reflection than a structured academic argument.
Critics could point out a lack of empirical evidence or formal rhetorical analysis, which may weaken the essay’s theoretical authority.

There’s minimal engagement with opposing theories of bullshit beyond Frankfurt, limiting dialogic robustness.

🔄 3. Redundant with Frankfurt’s Theory

While claiming to move beyond Frankfurt, Rice’s framework is arguably still deeply tethered to his definition of bullshit.
Her central claim—that bullshit is unconcerned with truth but focused on effect—is already present in Frankfurt’s original thesis.

Critics may question whether the essay adds enough theoretical novelty beyond metaphor and affect.

⚖️ 4. Ambiguity Around Ethical Judgments

Rice suggests that disgust can be a rhetorical tactic, but this raises ethical concerns.
Disgust is a morally loaded and culturally contingent emotion, which has historically been used to justify exclusion and oppression (as Sara Ahmed and Kristeva have also noted).

Encouraging its rhetorical use may risk endorsing reactionary or exclusionary responses, especially in polarized political discourse.

🧱 5. Problematic Idealization of “Porousness”

The essay valorizes rhetorical “porousness” as inherently good—but porousness is not always safe or productive.
In high-stakes political or ethical contexts, openness to dialogue may enable harm or disinformation rather than mutual understanding.

Critics may argue that not all discursive engagements deserve mutuality, especially when rooted in bad faith.

🌀 6. Ambivalence Toward Power and Agency

Rice identifies “bullshit” as a symptom of power-driven disregard, yet doesn’t fully theorize who has the power to deploy or resist it.
There’s limited analysis of institutional structures that generate bullshit—e.g., media, government, corporate PR.

The result is a critique of discourse without an equally strong critique of systems.

💬 7. Undeveloped Pedagogical Application

Although it begins with a teaching anecdote, Rice does not offer a clear educational takeaway.
Some readers may find her acceptance of the student’s sarcastic response overly generous or pedagogically uncritical.

This raises questions about the role of academic authority and standards in evaluating bullshit.

Representative Quotations from “Disgusting Bullshit ” by Jenny Rice with Explanation

🔖 Quotation	💬 Explanation
1️⃣ “What is bullshit? This answer is bullshit.” (p. 468)	This student’s ironic response becomes Rice’s starting point for exploring bullshit not as falsehood, but as an action that sidesteps truth altogether—capturing Frankfurt’s core thesis.
2️⃣ “Bullshit is not so much about belief or intention with regard to truth… but a technique designed to accomplish a silent motive.” (p. 468)	Rice reframes bullshit as strategic rhetoric, shifting analysis from epistemology (truth/falsity) to intention and consequence in communication.
3️⃣ “We might find it more useful to describe it in terms of activity.” (p. 469)	Rice argues that bullshit is better understood as rhetorical performance—an action with discursive effects, not just a content problem.
4️⃣ “Certain instances of bullshit are an effect of cognitive dissonance reduction.” (p. 469)	By linking bullshit to cognitive dissonance, Rice suggests it functions as a way to block discomfort caused by conflicting truths—especially in public health debates.
5️⃣ “Bullshit’s impaction is arguably a disgusting blockage of rhetorical eardrums.” (p. 470)	A metaphor for how bullshit stops people from listening or engaging—it creates a rhetorical deafness that prevents mutual understanding.
6️⃣ “Bullshit blocks this mutuality, this exchange of porousness.” (p. 470)	Rice emphasizes that true rhetoric requires openness, while bullshit hardens discourse into rigid positions where transformation is impossible.
7️⃣ “Bullshit arises from arrogant gestures of disregard.” (Fredal qtd., p. 470)	Citing Fredal, Rice underlines that bullshit is often an abuse of rhetorical power, where one side refuses to respect the other’s voice in discourse.
8️⃣ “Disgust is the response that exploits blockage as fundamentally unacceptable.” (p. 471)	Rice presents disgust as a rhetorical tactic, a visceral rejection of discursive obstruction that unmasks the failure of bullshit to allow engagement.
9️⃣ “Bullshit discourse is itself rooted in a sentimental aesthetics.” (p. 471)	She critiques how bullshit often appeals to emotion or spectacle, bypassing rational discourse in favor of affective manipulation.
🔟 “Bullshit’s challenge for rhetoricians is to continue listening for the call.” (p. 472)	Concludes with a call to rhetorical ethics—arguing that the true work of rhetoric is to create conditions for ethical response, even in the face of bullshit.

“Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman: Summary and Critique

“Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman first appeared in 2010 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology.

Introduction: “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman

“Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman first appeared in 2010 in the Journal of the American College of Radiology. This incisive essay explores the cultural and intellectual consequences of a pervasive yet often overlooked pollutant: bullshit—not as vulgarity, but as a profound ethical and epistemological failure. Drawing on Harry Frankfurt’s 2005 monograph On Bullshit, Gunderman examines the phenomenon as a distinct form of discourse characterized not by intentional lying but by indifference to truth. In contrast to the liar who at least acknowledges the truth in order to conceal it, the bullshitter operates in a realm where truth and falsity are irrelevant, seeking only to maintain appearances and authority. Through literary illustration (e.g., Tolstoy’s War and Peace) and clinical reflection, Gunderman identifies bullshit as a corrosive force in professional and intellectual life—one that undermines trust, authenticity, and the pursuit of knowledge. Its rise, he argues, is fueled by environments that discourage admitting ignorance and instead reward the illusion of omniscience. Crucially, Gunderman warns against postmodern antirealism, where sincerity replaces truth as the highest value, rendering discourse hollow. In literary theory, the essay critiques the abandonment of objective standards and resonates as a call to restore truth’s central place in language, thought, and ethics. Gunderman thus contributes not only to medical professionalism but also to broader conversations in literary theory about meaning, sincerity, and the dangers of epistemological relativism.

Summary of “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman

💥 Bullshit as a Modern Pollutant

Gunderman argues that bullshit is a more dangerous contaminant than physical pollutants like chemicals or emissions.
It corrupts the social and psychological environment, eroding trust and belief.

“This pollutant is known colloquially as bullshit… it takes an immense toll on our capacity to trust, to believe what we hear and say.”

📚 Philosophical Foundations: Frankfurt’s Theory

Builds on Harry Frankfurt’s definition from On Bullshit (2005).
Bullshit ≠ Lie: Liars acknowledge the truth to conceal it; bullshitters are indifferent to truth.
“To tell a lie, it is necessary to know the truth, but to bullshit it is only necessary not to care about it.”

“Bullshitters merely do not want to be revealed as unknowing… They care most about appearances.”

📖 Literary Illustration: Tolstoy’s War and Peace

Uses a character from Tolstoy to show unintentional bullshit through embellished storytelling.
Rostov’s narrative shifts from factual to what sounds good, reflecting how easily truth is displaced by expectation.

“He began his story meaning to tell everything just as it happened, but imperceptibly… he lapsed into falsehood.”

🧪 Bullshit in Professional Fields

Even medicine and academia are not immune; professionals feel pressure to appear all-knowing.
The fear of admitting ignorance leads to more bullshit, particularly among those in authority.

“When we begin to feel that we cannot admit ‘I don’t know’… we have joined the ranks of the bullshitters.”

🧠 Silence vs. Speech

Sometimes, silence or admitting ignorance is the more truthful act.
Speaking just to fill silence or distract can promote false impressions and suppress truth.

“Rather than allow a lull in the conversation… someone chimes in with an inapposite point that merely distracts.”

📺 The Rise of Antirealism and Postmodern Influence

Frankfurt (and Gunderman) critique the postmodern rejection of objective truth, which fosters bullshit.
This leads to a focus on sincerity over accuracy, undermining meaning.

“In forsaking truth and falsehood and being merely sincere, we are admitting that we no longer care what is true or false.”

🔍 The Cost of Bullshit: Erosion of Trust

Once trust is lost due to bullshit, it’s difficult to regain, especially in education and professions.
Communication depends on shared respect for meaning and truth.
“Trust is perhaps the most fundamental of all virtues in the professions.”

🧭 Ethical Call: Embrace Ignorance and Seek Truth

Gunderman calls for intellectual humility: acknowledging ignorance as the start of learning.
He invokes Socrates, who was wise for recognizing what he did not know.
“The quest for knowledge begins in the recognition of ignorance.”

“Instead of helping clarify matters, we render ourselves major polluters who merely cloud the understandings of others.”

🔄 Consequences for Individuals and Organizations

Bullshit creates a false self-image and encourages a culture of pretense and obscurity.
It hampers critical thought, alienates people from their own ignorance, and undermines discovery.

“We nod when we should question… It also promotes a culture of obscurity.”

🧪 Scientific and Educational Implications

Real learning in science comes from questioning and recognizing what we do not know.
Bullshit undermines the progress of knowledge and clouds the distinction between truth and falsehood.

“Biomedical science marches forward… by identifying what the textbooks got wrong.”

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman

📘 Theoretical Term	🧾 Explanation	🔖 Supporting Quotation / In-text Citation
🎭 Bullshit (Frankfurt’s Theory)	A form of discourse marked by indifference to truth. Unlike lying, it’s about appearing informed, not conveying truth.	“Bullshitters merely do not want to be revealed as unknowing… They care most about appearances.” (Gunderman, 2010, p. 13)
❌ Lying vs. Bullshit	Lies involve recognizing and distorting truth; bullshit does not even care about truth or falsity.	“To tell a lie, it is necessary to know the truth, but to bullshit it is only necessary not to care about it.” (p. 13)
🌀 Postmodernism / Antirealism	Claims there’s no objective reality, only sincerity. Undermines the relevance of truth in favor of subjective belief.	“If we can no longer be true to the way the world is… then at least we can be true to ourselves.” (p. 14)
🧠 Socratic Ignorance / Epistemic Humility	True wisdom begins in acknowledging one’s ignorance—key to ethical intellectual life.	“Socrates… was the wisest man… because he recognized that he did not know.” (p. 14)
🏛️ Professional Trust / Epistemic Integrity	Trust in professionals depends on truth-telling and resisting the urge to bluff or appear all-knowing.	“Trust is perhaps the most fundamental of all virtues in the professions.” (p. 13)
📺 Media Discourse / Performed Knowledge	Media encourages superficial opinions over informed knowledge, driven by presentation rather than truth.	“This view… permeates many television talk shows.” (p. 14)
🧪 Scientific Fallibility and Progress	Knowledge grows by identifying errors or unknowns, not reinforcing existing beliefs.	“Biomedical science marches forward… by identifying what the textbooks got wrong.” (p. 15)
🗨️ Ethics of Communication	Honest discourse requires a shared framework of meaning and commitment to veracity.	“Communication is only possible when we can assume a shared system of meaning respected by both parties.” (p. 13)
🌫️ False Self-Presentation / Cognitive Dissonance	Bullshit disconnects people from their actual knowledge, creating a distorted self-image.	“It alienates us from ourselves… prompting us to live with a false image of who we really are.” (p. 14)

Contribution of “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman to Literary Theory/Theories

📚 1. Postmodernism

Contribution: Gunderman critiques postmodernism’s rejection of objective truth, which aligns with Harry Frankfurt’s concern about a culture where sincerity replaces accuracy.
He exposes the danger of antirealism, where statements are judged not by truth value but by emotional or performative sincerity.

“This is the view that there is no objective reality… Instead the only determination we can make is whether the statement is sincere or not.” (Gunderman, 2010, p. 14)
Gunderman warns that this leads to a condition where even sincerity becomes bullshit—a central postmodern tension.

🧠 2. Epistemological Criticism / Philosophy of Knowledge

Contribution: The essay reinforces the Socratic model of epistemic humility, aligning with literary theory that values the interrogation of knowledge systems and the limits of knowing.

It champions intellectual honesty and the idea that recognizing one’s ignorance is the beginning of authentic discourse.
“The quest for knowledge begins in the recognition of ignorance.” (p. 14)
Challenges the trend in theory and discourse that equates opinion with truth, a common critique in epistemological debates.

🎭 3. Reader-Response Theory

Contribution: Gunderman’s use of Tolstoy’s War and Peace shows how readers and speakers reshape narratives based on expectations and audience response, not fidelity to events.
Rostov alters his story to fit the “script” of heroism listeners desire—mirroring how readers construct meaning from textual performance.
“They would either not have believed him or… thought that Rostov was himself to blame… And so he told them all that.” (p. 13)

🗨️ 4. Rhetorical and Discourse Theory

Contribution: The essay provides a critique of discursive authority and performativity—particularly how language is used to project authority without substance.
It identifies bullshit as a communicative strategy that mimics authority, echoing concerns in rhetorical theory about the manipulation of discourse.
“They care most about appearances, and they will say what they need to say to maintain the impression of authority.” (p. 13)

🧩 5. Deconstruction

Contribution: While Gunderman critiques postmodern relativism, he simultaneously highlights inherent contradictions in communication, reminiscent of deconstruction.
The article touches on paradoxes like the Epimenides paradox (“Everything I say is a lie”) and the instability of meaning when truth is abandoned.
“If we habitually mislead… even when we seek earnestly to tell the truth, we will not be believed.” (p. 13)

This reflects deconstructive ideas about the unreliability of signifiers and the breakdown of trust in language.

🧪 6. Ethical Criticism

Contribution: Gunderman advocates for truthfulness as a moral imperative in both speech and writing, echoing ethical literary theories that link form and meaning to ethical responsibility.
He stresses the duty of professionals and communicators to preserve clarity and honesty in language.

“It is vital that we commit to veracity. From a professional point of view, it is more important to rescue the understanding than to save face.” (p. 15)

🌫️ 7. Structuralism

Contribution: The essay indirectly affirms the importance of shared meaning systems (a central structuralist idea) in maintaining communication.
When bullshit proliferates, the semiotic structure breaks down, and communication becomes unmoored from any stable signified.

“Communication is only possible when we can assume a shared system of meaning respected by both parties.” (p. 13)

🏛️ 8. Cultural Criticism / Ideological Critique

Contribution: Gunderman critiques cultural norms that reward omniscience and authority, often at the expense of truth.
He links the prevalence of bullshit to institutional pressures and professional roles that discourage honest ignorance.

“Taking on formal authority can augment this impulse… promoting any preexisting inclinations in this direction.” (p. 14)

📺 9. Media and Popular Culture Studies

Contribution: The essay connects the spread of bullshit to media-driven discourse, where sincerity and image outweigh truth.
This aligns with theories about the spectacle of knowledge in talk shows, branding, and performative identity.

“A view that seems to permeate many television talk shows… we can be true to ourselves.” (p. 14)

These contributions demonstrate that Gunderman’s “Bullshit” is more than a commentary on speech ethics—it is a theoretically rich critique of post-truth discourse, resonant across epistemology, rhetoric, literary ethics, and cultural theory.

Examples of Critiques Through “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman

📘 Literary Work	🧐 Critique through Gunderman’s “Bullshit”	🔖 Linked Concept from Article
⚔️ War and Peace – Leo Tolstoy	Rostov’s self-aggrandizing account of battle illustrates involuntary bullshit—truth distorted to match social expectations and maintain heroic image.	“He began his story meaning to tell everything just as it happened… inevitably he lapsed into falsehood.” (p. 13)
👑 Hamlet – William Shakespeare	Hamlet’s antic disposition and performative madness blur sincerity and deception—he manipulates perception, sometimes without clarity of his own motives. This mirrors the bullshitter’s indifference to truth.	“They care most about appearances… even when they don’t [know], they go ahead and act as if they do.” (p. 13)
📰 The Great Gatsby – F. Scott Fitzgerald	Gatsby constructs an elaborate persona built on half-truths and vague stories. His mythmaking is a form of social bullshit—truth subordinated to image.	“We render ourselves major polluters who merely cloud the understandings of others.” (p. 15)
🧪 The Road – Cormac McCarthy	In contrast, the father’s sparse, honest speech resists bullshit. His refusal to embellish or falsely reassure his son reflects veracity over comfort, as Gunderman advocates.	“It is vital that we commit to veracity… to rescue the understanding rather than save face.” (p. 15)

Criticism Against “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman

🧩 Overreliance on Frankfurt’s Framework

Gunderman heavily depends on Harry Frankfurt’s binary of lying vs. bullshit, without sufficiently challenging or extending it.

Critics may argue that this makes the essay derivative, offering limited philosophical innovation.

🧠 Dismissal of Postmodernism as Oversimplified

The essay critiques postmodernism as a cause of truth erosion but overgeneralizes it, reducing complex theories to cultural nihilism.
It treats postmodern thought as a singular force promoting insincerity, overlooking internal diversity and self-critical elements in thinkers like Foucault, Derrida, or Lyotard.

🛑 Lack of Nuance in Professional Contexts

The claim that professionals (like doctors) often engage in bullshit to maintain authority may underestimate the ethical deliberation many undertake.
This could be seen as unfairly cynical toward institutions or individuals navigating complex communication demands.

🕳️ Absence of Empirical Support

The article is rich in anecdotal and philosophical insights but lacks empirical data or case studies to support its claims about the prevalence or effects of bullshit in medicine, academia, or public discourse.

📚 Limited Literary Engagement

Though it references War and Peace, the article doesn’t deeply analyze literature beyond surface examples.
Literary theorists may see this as a missed opportunity to more rigorously integrate narrative theory or stylistics.

🔄 Binary Framing: Truth vs. Bullshit

Gunderman implies that one is either truth-telling or bullshitting, which ignores the complexities of ambiguity, uncertainty, or poetic discourse.

Not all language that lacks full truth-value is deceptive or meaningless.

📣 Moralizing Tone

The tone, particularly in the concluding sections, leans toward didactic moralism.
Critics might argue this reduces philosophical depth in favor of professional lecturing, weakening its resonance with broader literary or cultural theory.

Representative Quotations from “Bullshit” by Richard B. Gunderman with Explanation

📘 Quotation	🧠 Explanation
💀 “This pollutant is known colloquially as bullshit.”	Gunderman identifies bullshit as a dangerous social pollutant that undermines our psychological and communicative environment, more insidious than toxins in the air or water.
⚖️ “To tell a lie, it is necessary to know the truth, but to bullshit it is only necessary not to care about it.”	A central thesis: bullshit differs from lying because it reflects indifference to truth, not active deception—a foundational insight from Frankfurt.
🧙 “Bullshitters merely do not want to be revealed as unknowing.”	Exposes the psychological motive behind bullshitting: fear of ignorance exposure, especially in positions of authority.
🎭 “He began his story meaning to tell everything just as it happened, but imperceptibly, involuntarily, and inevitably he lapsed into falsehood.”	Through War and Peace, Gunderman illustrates narrative distortion as a form of bullshit—how expectation and self-image override truth.
🧼 “Communication is only possible when we can assume a shared system of meaning respected by both parties.”	Emphasizes that bullshit erodes trust and shared language, making meaningful discourse unreliable or impossible.
🏛️ “Trust is perhaps the most fundamental of all virtues in the professions.”	Positions trust as the foundation of ethical communication, particularly in medicine, academia, and science, where bullshit is most corrosive.
🧠 “Socrates… was the wisest man… because he recognized that he did not know.”	Invokes Socratic ignorance as a model of intellectual virtue, highlighting the value of honest humility over pretense.
📢 “Who will be the biggest bullshitters of all? People who feel obliged to render an opinion on everything.”	A sharp critique of performative omniscience, especially among public figures and experts who feel compelled to speak without knowledge.
🌪️ “We shed smoke, not light, and everyone suffers from our presence.”	A metaphor for the obfuscating effects of bullshit, which confuses rather than clarifies, harming both speaker and audience.
🔍 “Far from fleeing what we do not know, we must become connoisseurs of our own ignorance.”	A profound call to intellectual honesty and curiosity, suggesting that recognizing ignorance is the first step toward genuine understanding.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30

Day: June 22, 2025