Critical Reading with Michael Warner

The point of Michael Warner’s article, ’’Uncritical Reading’’, it seemed, was to question whether  there is ever any point in trying to develop the practice of critical reading-when what critics deem as ‘uncritical reading’ appears to be the same thing, but perhaps more beneficial.  I was intrigued upon reading it to discover that Warner’s arguments about upholding critical reading, are connected to Donald Pease’s ideas about authorship. In the sense that, that while critical reading is regarded by academics and its upholders as an inherently ‘known’ and understood concept, the way that Warner has explained it emphasizes its connections to  ‘all other works and, ultimately to the idea of art.’ Much like the creative image of authorship is dependent on its being defined by rules and limitations in the author sphere, critical reading, which is all about understanding creative works, is also defined by similar restrictions and rules.  As a result,one of the questions I encountered after this reading was:  Are most literary concepts reliant on their connections to pre-existing codes of literary practice and procedure, in order to survive? A simplistic question  perhaps, but it did make me question the possibility of truly new literary theories ever being able to surface-when all we encounter, it seems, are recycled versions of past edicts and ideas.

  As I mentioned before, I found it interesting how so-called creative practices are always governed by very strict methods of reading and understanding. The article also addresses how other critics respond to the idea of critical reading, with Warner mentioning Eve Kosofsky Sedgewick’s theory of how critical reading distorts reader’s perception of texts.  The emphasis, she notes, on reading texts in the ‘correct’ critical manner instills in the mind an unnatural wariness and scorn against literary techniques, that are then wasted. To counter these crippling methods of reading, Sedgwick suggests ‘reparative reading’-a practice of reading that seeks to engage with texts in a more attached and sincere manner.  Reparative reading is a mode that is ‘not preoccupied with critical distance towards their interpretative objects’.  Yet, this approach, while conducive to a greater enjoyment of the texts, does not offer its readers much insight into its value, Warner argues. To him, a text’s value is dependent on whether its critical value  is evident upon being read-if a text does not allow itself to be analysed in this way, it is then impossible for it to have any impact on the reader at all.                This point then really brings up the whole point of Warner’s article: Is it possible for readers to censor their emotional bias when reading a text and only view it critically? Moreover, is it beneficial, or right? Warner seems to think so-although he offers examples of texts that seem to overcome these boundaries, they are examples with exceptional circumstances- yet he does agree that in order for critical reading as an approach to work, we must first understand that it is a complex and often unique method.