The awfully indefinable practice of critical reading...

Even before reading Michael Warner’s “Uncritical Reading”, the idea of critical reading did not sit well with me.  The reputed analytical power of critical reading and the veritable treasure throve of knowledge that this practice promised to yield up, made me very nervous.  What exactly was critical reading? Was I doing it? How did I know I was doing it? Although his chapter has not completely enlightened me, he has certainly brought raised some very interesting points that have enriched my understanding of critical reading. 

          Warner’s comment, that the way in which critical reading is described seems to treat it as “a notional derivative from a prior critical reading that it must posit in order to exist” (15), had escaped my attention.  It’s generally assumed that some affective reading mode has previously digested the text, putting these two practices side by side.  The derisive treatment of the affective, or ‘uncritical’, modes of reading by the critical orthodoxy is largely a product of their paranoid fear of textual attachment (Warner 16).  This is certainly something I’ve noticed in Bayard’s “How to Talk About Books You Haven’t Read” and it really irritated me.  Feelings do have a place in the process of reading, and sacrificing them completely is a rather strange idea.  The crux of Warner’s argument proposed that, rather than considering ‘critical’ and ‘uncritical’ forms of reading as opposed to each other, we should consider them as just different and essentially complementary (Warner 30). 

        However, for fear sounding slavishly devoted to Michael Warner, I should outline some of the limitations in his work.  Primarily, these limitations rest mostly in what he fails to say rather than what he actually says.  For example, in trotting the reader through the developments in philosophical thoughts throughout history that have led to this split between critical and uncritical conceptions of reading (Warner 26 – 32), he fails to question whether or not we can legitimately separate reading into these different modes and, if we can, if it is advisable.  Warner also identifies that the professional critic, in their attempt to provide a critical reading, should not be a “business of taste-making…[and providing a] thumbs-up-thumbs-down decision of aesthetic judgement” (25), but he doesn’t actually say what the critic is expected to do if not this.  If it is to be objective, can they truly avoid imbuing their professional opinion with their personal opinion? The ability for the critic to be objective is not questioned. This argument becomes less direct as the chapter continues, and he seems to seek refuge in commenting on others’ work rather than presenting his own ideas. His line of argument seems to peter out before he says anything really groundbreaking. Overall, Warner really has presented an interesting discussion on the idea of critical thinking: it is very easy to understand, says what needs to be said and goes where no work has dared to tread before now.  But I do wish he explored his ideas further - especially defining the slippery topic of critical reading more satisfactorily.
Works Cited
Warner, Michael. "Uncritical Reading". Jane Gallop, ed. Poleric: Critical or Uncritical. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
Bayard, Pierre. How to Talk about Books You Haven't Read. New York: Granta, 2007.