Eve is here. We hope our readers enjoy the change from the usual programming. I’m sure most of you have been victims of pedantry at some point. A strict person, or someone who thinks they need to substantiate their opinions, may be accused of being pedantic or not “getting it”, as if something is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explained.
I wish the author or Das would have given an example of pedantic writing. Perhaps the reader can point out a few.
I found a promising chapter in the book “The Vices of Academics” called “The Persistence of Pedants.” for example:
It may seem surprising that pedants can still evoke such strong emotions. While other intellectual vices, such as academic charlatans and mad scientists, have traditionally been surrounded by notoriety, scandal, and even fear, pedants have long been characterized as a type of overtly boring sociopath. Boredom has historically been a key characteristic in the expression of pedantry, along with other negative characteristics such as fussiness, narrowness, and ostentation in the use of learning. But it is precisely these contradictory associations and reactions that make this picture particularly interesting. This pedantic novel reveals how historical typologies and metaphors of academic misconduct can be utilized to represent a collection of vices. The combination of changes in emphasis in the representation of pedants and the vices ascribed to them provides interesting clues to explain why this typeface continues to be in demand.
Now on to the main event.
Satyajit Das is a former banker and author of numerous technical works and several popular titles on derivatives. Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and Unknowns in the Dazzling World of Derivatives (2006 and 2010), Extreme Money: The Masters of the Universe and the Cult of Risk (2011), and A Banquet of Consequences (2016 and 2021). His latest book, The Everything Bubble: A Guide to the New Age of Financial Speculation and Fantastic Wealth, is scheduled for release in 2027. He has also written about Ecotourism – In Search of the Pangolin (2006) (co-authored with Jade Novakovic) and Wild Quest: A Journey into the Future of Ecotourism and Animals (2024). This is an expanded version of an article published in the print edition of the New Indian Express.
It is impossible to write a book or comment on a pedantic hobby without being a pedant. It doesn’t help that the author proudly states that in school he took pride in correcting teachers, and confesses that in adolescence he was “precocious with words” and could not understand the irritation it caused.
Mr. Visser, around SQ, a Dutch professor in the humanities field of Renaissance written culture, thought, unbeknownst to this reviewer, that it was a book about other books, an ouroboros of self-indulgence essential to honing one’s academic credentials. On Pedantism: A Cultural History of Know-it-alls (Princeton Press, 2025) purports to be a history and critique of pedantry, a vice of Western culture and a suspected grave crime in higher education settings.
Professor Visser traces the origin of the word “pedant” back to “pedante.” This is the name given to tutors, usually of low social status, hired to instruct the children of wealthy families in Renaissance Italy. This concept has its origins in ancient Greece with thinkers like the Sophists. This book is helpfully short, but it’s a chronological historical tour that covers 2,500 years. Part 1 deals with a time before the very concepts of today’s pedantry were born. The second part examines phenomena in early modern Europe and the Enlightenment. The final part considers it in a modern context.
The central theme of pedantry, at least ontologically problematic, is that pretensions and exaggerated displays of learning are always a nuisance, as the mentally retarded scribe was able to recognize. Professor Visser sees three patterns. First, “a repertoire of pedantry and know-it-alls that can be traced back through the ages transcended individual narratives and formed a cultural script for inappropriate intellectual behavior.” Second, the history of pedantry “reveals the remarkable contributions of pedants themselves.” “Third, pedantry involves the enduring importance of etiquette…bad manners, unsightly appearance, and inappropriate behavior continue to be marked by pedantry.” Translated, the concept of pedantry seems to be based on stereotypes, gender bias (“pedantism is a male-coded phenomenon”), lack of masculine vitality (“dead from the waist down”), and effeminacy. Many of the conflicts on this issue are verbal disputes between pedants and pedants. Who would have thought!
The title is misleading. On Pedantry is concerned with the treatment of anti-intellectualism. The main focus is on the evolution of “cultural scripts” for real and false intellectuals throughout history. This harassment is well known for variously portraying this group as destructive or worthless, seedy or pretentious, effeminate or toxically masculine. There is nothing new about this, but this is the main point Professor Visser makes.
This book never fails to understand that the meaning and interpretation of the underlying concepts – pedantry and the elusive ideas of intellectuals – change frequently. He considers intelligence to be synonymous with learning. This distorts the book, starting with Socrates, who was executed as a subversive thinker rather than a scholar.
The author despises the difference between fact and opinion. Correcting factual errors, even in grammar or expression, is not pedantic. Disagreements, especially on philosophical issues, reflect differences in perspective. Providing a critical analysis of someone’s position is never pedantic. As the late politician Daniel Patrick Moynihan put it: “You have a right to your opinion, but you have no right to know your own facts.” As long as people ignore facts or avoid discussion based on their beliefs, reality will not change.
This lack of clarity finds the author in the same position as Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who uttered the famous line related to the detection of “hardcore” pornography in his 1964 concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio. The author fully accepts the judge’s approach: “Today I will not attempt to further define the kind of content that I understand to be contained within that brief description, and I will probably never succeed in doing so intelligibly.” Professor Visser’s weak argument is that degrees matter, pedantically. He is concerned about how much precision is too much. However, pedantry is inherently contextual and varies from party to party. “I’m correcting you, but you’re being pedantic!”.
This book contains the always frustrating tone that pedantry is negative. He has a hard time distinguishing the line between argument and the interlocutor’s personal characteristics, which are irrelevant. The book fails to make a coherent argument and instead becomes a social history of pedantry in the Western tradition as a negative personality or stereotype in society. Over time, On Pedantry ends up being a collection of negative metaphors used against knowledge and intellectuals. Professor Visser tries to connect this to more fundamental social situations and debates, but he only succeeds in explaining how trivial precision, “pesky fault-finding” and “exasperating attention to detail” are an annoyance to some people. Reading this book makes me feel sympathy for honest intellectuals who are misrepresented as pedants by anti-intellectuals and self-serving politicians.
The book lacks a clear core position and is stylistically useless. Professor Visser wants to cater to a general audience as well as an academic one, resulting in uncomfortable compromises. On Pedantry ends up being a series of sometimes entertaining digressions and digressions. It adheres to the familiar non-fiction formula in vogue. Write a brief biography of someone, outline some of his ideas, add or remove critiques, divide by different thinkers, rinse and repeat. Reading Wikipedia articles one after another can sometimes make me stumble.
The attempts to use cultural examples, especially movies, to enhance the book’s general appeal hardly seem authentic. It’s interesting that Professor Visser used Woody Allen’s 2015 film The Irrational Man, about a philosophy teacher. Your diligent scribe had never heard of such a thing and had to endure 96 minutes of relentless mundane work. The misreading of Simon Gray’s play Bathory (Professor Visser refers to the film version starring Alan Bates as the central character of the same name) is a case in point. It’s not about being pedantic, it’s about self-loathing and the weariness of being alive. It has little to do with a decline in intellectual and cultural authority.
The omission is particularly surprising. Anonymous internet trolls and “mansplaining” are mentioned but not explored in detail. There is no impact from new knowledge technologies, especially AI. These recent phenomena are far more relevant than obscure film productions.
The book’s blurb makes a witty argument. This clearly requires an understanding of Dutch humor and character that goes beyond the scribe’s acquaintance. Perhaps it’s an acquired taste, given former Dutch prime minister and current NATO chief Mark Rutte’s shameless and macabre fawning over his “daddy” US president, Donald Trump.
Pedantry misses an opportunity to examine the anti-intellectualism that is now more prevalent than ever. During the Brexit debate, British politician Michael Gove dismissed economic concerns by claiming that “the people of this country have had enough of experts” (a claim that has since been proven correct). Professor Visser pinpoints the American mistrust of academics that gave rise to the 19th century political party Know Nothings. But he does not fully connect today’s rampant rejection of knowledge with the acceptance of “alternative facts.” Tom Paine argued for “useful knowledge” on the grounds that “dictionaries” got it all wrong. By cleverly combining pedantry with the tyranny of the monarchy and rejection of religion, he was able to further his political objectives. The same is true in the 21st century and can still be seen today in the xenophobic agendas of the “anti-woke” and “anti-elite” and the general disregard and fear of expertise and knowledge.
Anti-intellectualism is dangerous and corrosive to society. Under two Trump administrations, there have been attacks on research, universities, science, information (including environmental data), critical thinking, and the discrediting of vaccines. The full cost will become clearer over time. Professor Visser could have chosen historical precedents to explain how history influences these modern developments.
After all, “pedantism” denies its own claims. It is true that it is very difficult to judge the value and completeness of arguments and ideas, but the academic tendency towards deliberate incomprehension and jargon only masks the triviality and meaninglessness of what is being said. Common abrasive approaches often hide uncertainty and anxiety. The author concludes “Pedantism” by sharply asserting his authority, arguing that if the reader does not find the book persuasive, he asserts:[their] I completely understand the objections. But pedants would know better. ”
Professor Visser quotes Michel de Montaigne’s condemnation of scholarship, but he doesn’t listen. “What do we have to say? What decisions do we make? What are we doing?”
© 2026 Satyajit Das All Rights Reserved
.
