![PPP_logo_2022.jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/751838_3c3b1a18be3949fabe6d15b3f297af35~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_269,h_130,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/PPP_logo_2022.jpg)
![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/751838_32921daac8714ad29eb615a073df55f4~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_980,h_980,al_c,q_85,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_auto/751838_32921daac8714ad29eb615a073df55f4~mv2.jpg)
Are the Humanities Inconsequent?
Or, Marx's Riddle of the Dog
Jerome McGann
A spectre is haunting literature today – the spectre of patacriticism. Nowhere is the threat more evident than in the dog riddle propounded by the late Marx: “Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read.” This book, which explains for the first time what Marx meant, works from two assumptions: 1. That the riddle conceals an allegory about book culture and is addressed to the academic custodians of book culture; and 2. that our explanation is necessarily implicated in the problem posed by the riddle of the dog. It therefore remains to be seen – it is the reader’s part to decide – whether the book is a friend to man or, perhaps like Marx’s riddle, too dark to read.