Because I can definitely see how you would be getting that feeling in this thread, as probably the most prominent person favouring the selection of the book, and as literary theory expert besides. It can't be easy to simultaneously defend the book against Tom and Greg's attacks (I'm not saying anything about the validity of those attacks, I haven't even read the book), try to have some discussion of the actual book with those willing like Jen and John, *and* debate the more theoretical issue of how to view authorial intent with Tom and myself. It must certainly be draining, as you say.

I think it would probably be best to drop the argument of whether or not the book is worth discussing, possibly also the one about authorial intent, and focus on discussing the content of the book with those willing. Which you were probably going to do already anyway.