In response to my critique of his talk on Romeo & Juliet, lecturer Andrew Doyle called me “woke” and an “ideologue,” then deleted all his tweets and blocked me
This article was originally published here.
Well that didn’t go as expected!
Last month (September), I published a critique of the Jordan Peterson Academy lecture on Romeo & Juliet by Andrew Doyle in the online magazine New English Review.
In it, I discuss how Doyle “rhapsodizes” about Shakespeare’s lovers, calling their love not just “true” but “transcendent,” a term he repeats half a dozen times.
I shared the essay on X, tagging both the Academy and Doyle, yet not really expecting a response. But to my surprise, Doyle didn’t just respond. He wrote angry tweet after angry tweet.
At first, he accused me of misinterpreting him:
You appear to have misread everything I said. But don’t worry – it happens a lot.
I responded with a quote from his lecture:
“Shakespeare is dealing with transcendental love, the transcendental heights of love, and when you are in love, Shakespeare seems to say, nothing else matters.”
He answered,
Yes, the intensity of love can blind its subject to all other concerns. That’s precisely why it can be so dangerous.
Then, after Canadian columnist Barbara Kay retweeted my article, calling it a “fascinating and persuasive argument against the received wisdom that Romeo and Juliet is a great love story,” Doyle responded,
A remarkably literal-minded misreading of my words from this chap! He seems to believe I say things I don’t, in fact, say. Romeo is not the idealised form of love – he’s an infatuated adolescent who is drawn into an emotional state too intense for his understanding.
Again, I responded with a quote from his lecture:
“We have true, transcendental, celestial love, as depicted so beautifully in the relationship of R and J… The sexual act between Romeo and Juliet is not degrading. It’s elevating, it’s spiritual. Romeo’s journey is from adolescent lust to a higher form of love.”
He answered,
Well done. You can quote one sentence out of context and ignore the broader points. You’ve wildly misunderstood the lecture, and you’ve also misread Shakespeare. A double whammy! 👏
I responded with a link to my essay and saying,
Perfectly happy to let people decide for themselves whether I’ve misrepresented you and misread the text.
And that’s when the name-calling began.
First, he compared me to the “woke”:
You strike me very much like the woke, trying to impose one narrow interpretation where there are many.
In response, I took the transcript of his lecture and pasted it into both Grok and ChatGPT and asked, “Is it fair to say the presenter romanticizes the lovers?” Both answered affirmatively. “Yes,” said Grok,
it’s fair to say the presenter romanticizes the lovers in Romeo and Juliet. The presenter emphasizes the transcendental, almost divine nature of their love…
“Yes,” said Chat,
It’s very fair to say that the presenter romanticizes Romeo and Juliet in this transcript… The presenter’s emphasis is consistently on the sublime, poetic, transcendental qualities of Romeo and Juliet’s love…
Despite this, Doyle persisted in saying I’d misrepresented him—and proceeded to call me an “ideologue, not a critic”:
Okay, since you are content to write factually inaccurate information in order to make your point, you can’t be taken seriously. You’re an ideologue, not a critic.
At this point, Barbara Kay chimed in, saying she was “disappointed” in his “mean-spiritedness” and calling for “civility.” In response, Doyle criticized her too, saying he “expected better” of her.
The next day, I asked Peterson Academy if they found this behavior “becoming” of one of their professors:
Dear @petersonacademy and @jordanbpeterson. I wonder if you consider this conduct becoming of one of your lecturers. I publish a critique of his talk. In response, he calls me an “ideologue, not a critic,” implies I’m a liar (”You have been caught out lying”) and compares me to the “woke” (”You strike me very much like the woke”). CC @MikhailaFuller, @jordan_m_fuller.
Doyle responded by calling my tweet “pathetic” and telling me to “grow up”:
How pathetic. If don’t want to be criticised, try the following: Don’t attempt to intuit the private thoughts of others and then present your intuitions as fact. Don’t refuse to retract factual inaccuracies in your work once they have been pointed out. Don’t use AI algorithms to support your misinterpretations of someone else’s analysis. In short: grow up.
But then, the next day, poof! Everything was gone. Doyle had deleted all his tweets—and blocked me.
Did he have a change of heart? Or did Peterson Academy pressure him to remove the posts?
Here again is the essay, which apart from critiquing the lecture, presents an overview of my contention that Shakespeare is satirizing the young Italian lovers:
Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet—According to @PetersonAcademy
Sep 22
Read full story
If you read it, I’d love to hear what you think!
10 Responses
After reading this unhappy string of argument and counterargument, accusations, denials, ad hominems, and attestations in support of the author’s interpretation on a particular point of contention from stupid AI sources (as if an AI declaration/interpretation about anything carries any value whatever) a particular cliche comes to mind:
It’s a Tempest in a tea pot.
Not a Deathocrat: No, nothing at stake here. It’s not like, say, we’ve badly misinterpreted Shakespeare‘s most popular play for 400 years now
Professor,
Since we’re not here talking about a Galileo-type situation whereby the predominant (and erroneous) viewpoint about the nature of the earth in relation to the celestial bodies, held very strongly for thousands of years, was correctly challenged (and the challenge supported by scientific evidence) – how do you figure that your interpretation of R&J, which you suggest strongly is more than mere interpretation but rather THE TRUTH, is anything other than another interpretation among hundreds or perhaps thousands of them and not your personal opinion only?
Regards,
NAD
WTF is wrong with you? Any well-read person is interested in this discussion. If you’re not, just move along. Many pages in NER have been spent discussing Shakespeare. The author provides a convincing and interesting argument and the inclusion of AI to bolster his argument is indeed relevant. Perhaps you need a new hobby besides consistent trolling?
Thank you MZS – glad you enjoyed the piece and found it persuasive
MZS: If you or the good professor believe that an AI assertion bolsters your arguments about anything you’re in the wrong field.
You apparently think that this discussion about a Shakespeare play is of world-shattering importance. I’ve got some news for you: It’s not.
Did you work on the Harris campaign?
Pointing AI at Shakespeare is like showing a pig a watch.
Unsurprisingly, you missed the bigger picture and focused on something you clearly know little about only because apparently you feel the need to share your uneducated and small-minded opinion while also chucking about random would-be insults.
Since you are spewing from a place of ill-will, rather than a place of an educated engagement of literature, you can childishly take the last word in your next ill-advised response.
MZS:
Thank you for the last word.
You apparently think that AI is an “authority” in similar fashion to say, oh, the good professor is an “authority” on Shakespeare so you “consult” the oracle, oh, I mean “the authority,” to get support for your argument to which you ascribe so much more import than it merits.
You obviously did work for the Harris campaign, then. I bet you’re a fake “academic” “scholar” at a fake “university” like Columbia or Harvard.
Nobody, even the author of the piece, thinks AI is an authority, and that was not claimed. You sound like you’re a complete idiot unable to understand any nuance nor any sophisticated argument—much like the Harris supporters. Go back to your crunching in the cubicle and leave the humanities discussions to the adults.