Critique of "My Father's Autopsy" by Danteh C. Christensen

I wrote the following two emails to the editor of Southern Humanities Review (Spring 2024):<br><br>---<br>I am an Adjunct Professor of Writing at the University of Minnesota. I'm writing to express my utter dismay at the quality of your latest Spring 2024 issue. You featured a piece by one Danteh C. Christensen titled "My Father's Autopsy". I'd like to present my strongest criticisms.<br><br>The piece is a poorly constructed, meandering, and vague piece of writing that I can only speculate was penned by a student and hardly edited. It's just as likely that the editor has succumbed to the same pervasive disease of "modern art" where form is forsaken for content in the name of individuality. Some pertinent criticisms include:<br><br>* The writing is rife with cliches about the "south" that detract from the story. What is more obnoxious is the author's hap-hazard employment of these cliches, which make the piece read like a laundry list of "southern" things that had no particular value in connecting to the narrative.<br>* The narrative is meandering and lacks any sort of direction. It opens with the protagonist on the path to his father's autopsy with his mother, but then suddenly shifts into the real meat of the "story" - a sort of mystical and formless magical realism that only detracts from the poignancy of the event. We are never presented with any sort of cohesive narrative, but rather a list of loosely related vignettes.<br>* The use of magical realism is the most egregious sin of this work. The author is not deft at handling it, and we are treated to pages of baffling surrealism that do little to enhance our understanding of the protagonist or their mother. If anything, it serves to undermine the tragedy of their father dying by immersing him in a world that is demonstrably not ours. We are never presented with any sort of flow or consistency, and instead the author snatches us away into random dreamscapes whose value, if there is any, is not immediately apparent.<br>* The writing is peppered with meandering sentences that wander without direction. This stylistic choice only further serves to exacerbate the lack of structure in the piece, and adds to the overall feeling of disorganization.<br>* The whole piece seems to lack a clear purpose. The author writes little of value about their father or mother, and seems to spend the lion's share of the writing reflecting on their own daydreams. I am reminded of, but not limited to, the lengthy aside that Danteh takes to contemplate the mystical nature of the highway that he and his mother are driving on. What's worse is that much of this is written in a pseudo-philosophic way, where the writing feels more like an imitation of depth rather than a genuine realization. The author is not profound, but they would very much like to be.<br><br>I am so disappointed to have seen such writing featured in your journal. I implore you to better vet the writing that you accept, lest it appear as though you are merely publishing the work of your students. I would be very interested in reading critiques of your own, which you can find at my profile.<br><br>Sincerely,<br>Jedediah B. Richards<br>Adjunct Professor of Writing<br>University of Minnesota<br><br>---<br><br>_**EDIT**_<br><br>I received a non-response that read as: <br><br>>Dear Mr. Richards,<br><br>>Thank you for reaching out. We are sorry that you did not enjoy this piece. However, your inclusion of several personal attacks on the author, including your closing that questions his academic credentials ("which you can find at my profile"), detracts from what you see as a critique. Thank you.<br><br>>Frank McNeely <br>>Managing Editor—Southern Humanities Review<br>>[email protected]<br><br>I responded with, but have not received a response to:<br><br>Dear Frank,<br><br>Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate the time that you took to consider my critique.<br><br>I most certainly did intend to personally attack the author. This was my intention, as I considered it the most incisive criticism that I could level at the piece. I would like to reiterate that I believe the piece to be of poor quality, and that it is most likely a product of an academic with a flimsy understanding of writing that they try to obfuscate with vague waffle. I believe this most sincerely and with great fervor, and I do not believe I should have to apologize for that.<br><br>I am glad that you found the critique valuable, and I hope you take it to heart. I would be interested in continuing this discussion if you have any disagreement you'd like to share. <br><br>Best regards,<br>Jedediah B. Richards<br>Adjunct Professor of Writing<br>University of Minnesota