One way to begin the discussion of the ethics of literary criticism is a negative one. To judge a poem or novel from the critic's political or religious convictions is unethical. A critic who does so is not addressing himself to the subject: a work of art. He is using the rules of one discipline to determine the value of another, or in some cases, sad to say, an author's reputation. This is the fallacy of the Consequent or Non Sequitur. For many years (and possibly now as well) literature suffered in another but comparable way. The author's affairs, his public and private lives, were substituted for examination and estimation of his work (Byron's swimming the Hellespont, his incest with his half sister; the man from Porlock and Coleridge). This type of criticism is an easy way out, and it has been made even easier, and seemingly more authoritative, now that the distinction between what is public and what is private is failing. For example, Cleanth Brooks did much to expose the inadequacy of such attention to the author's life. Ethical judgment requires a close reading of the text. Obita dicta such as opinion won't do either. This is the vulgarity of taste. It is irrational. Everybody has taste and prejudice. The first thing a critic should do is examine his own and restrain both, so as not to complicate his reading.