"Much literary criticism comes from people for whom extreme specialization is a cover for either grave cerebral inadequacy or terminal laziness, the latter being a much cherished aspect of academic freedom"

In this quote, John Kenneth Galbraith provides a sharp review of specific propensities within the realm of literary criticism, highlighting what he sees as defects in the field's scholastic method. Galbraith suggests that extreme specialization amongst literary critics often functions as an exterior to mask either an absence of intellectual capability ("severe cerebral insufficiency") or an extensive level of indolence ("terminal laziness"). Essentially, he argues that rather of contributing significant, broad insights, some critics burrow themselves into niche areas of research study. This specialization might appear as extensive scholarship, however frequently, it might not always reflect substantive understanding or critical acumen.

Galbraith further indicates that this inclination towards extreme specialization-- and the accompanying inadequacies-- is somewhat made it possible for or even protected by the nature of scholastic flexibility. In the academy, scholars have the liberty to pursue extremely narrow disciplines, and maybe some exploit this flexibility not to advance understanding but to prevent rigorous, requiring intellectual effort. He suggests that instead of engaging with literature in a manner that produces broader, connective insights, some critics may select a path of minimal resistance-- where they can run without the challenge of engaging with complex, overarching concepts.

Furthermore, Galbraith's critique addresses the prospective complacency that academic freedom can indirectly encourage. Instead of using this flexibility to explore huge and varied literary landscapes, these critics might instead choose to reside easily within the confines of minutiae. In amount, Galbraith is calling for a higher balance in literary criticism: one that integrates depth with breadth, expertise with considerable intellectual contribution, and scholarship that genuinely enriches the understanding of literature. This quote prompts critics to consider whether their work truly advances the field or simply capes a lack of diligence and bold in the guise of specialization.