It contains a quote from Frank Lentriccia, "who teaches English at Duke University, who published a remarkable public recantation of his prior complicity with an approach to literary criticism that concentrates on theory and ignores literature."
This speaks more to criticism of English literature, yet the point made about attitude can go much further.
Over the last ten years, I've pretty much stopped reading literary criticism, because most of it isn't literary. But criticism it is of a sort--the sort that stems from the sense that one is morally superior to the writers that one is supposedly describing. This posture is assumed when those writers represent the major islands of Western literary tradition, the central cultural engine--so it goes--of racism, poverty, sexism, homophobia, and imperialism: a cesspool that literary critics would expose for mankind's benefit.... It is impossible, this much is clear, to exaggerate the heroic self-inflation of academic literary criticism... The fundamental, if only implied, message of much literary criticism is self-righteous, and it takes this form: "T.S. Eliot is a homophobe and I am not. Therefore, I am a better person than Eliot. Imitate me, not Eliot." To which the proper response is: "But T.S. Eliot could really write, and you can't. Tell us truly, is there no filth in your soul?"