You know what I need to see fewer of?
Journal articles that claim that all previous readings of Pretty Famous Works of Literature are hopelessly wrong and misguided, but that the author has right here in his pocket the key--heretofore unknown, unrecognized, and untried!--that will unlock all the work's mysteries, explain its apparent inconsistencies, and bring into the brilliant light of day the true motives for its composition.
Now, it's not like I haven't made my share of embarrassingly brash rhetorical moves (I have, in print, dismissed the work of "most twentieth-century literary critics" on a certain topic), and I'll even plead guilty to a mild form of intentionalism. . . but I like to think that I've never a) failed to define the single term that my entire argument depends on; b) neglected to establish how the work's author could possibly have known or why he would have followed a particular tradition or model in writing the work in question; and c) after saying that my argument explained all of a work's inconsistencies, gone on and happily ignored most of them.
Seriously, dudes. Cut that shit out.