Analysis as Praxis – Part II: Critical Reading & Critical Writing Notes

Central idea: One principal reason we read is to make sense of a text; the habit of creating meaning is a constant function of the human brain and happens with or without deliberate attention.
Reading is shaped by subjectivity: how we read depends on who we are as readers (our experiences, beliefs, and value systems).
Reflective questions to understand reading style:
- Which words in a prose or verse narrative appeal to me more than others?
- Why do these words stand out?
- Why does a story idea or theme stand out for me more than others?
- What does this say about me as a post-modern thinker, learner, reader, and human subject?
Shifting focus: asking these questions moves us from simply reading a story to interrogating why we read it in a particular way.
Core claim: Reading a story is often more about the reader than the story itself.
Transition to critical reading: The difference lies in noticing how we read and delving into why we do it that way.
Method: Asking the question “why” and trying to answer it by considering who I am as a reader, what I stand for, what I believe, and what is occurring in the story leads to deeper understanding.
Outcome: Such questioning helps us go beyond the printed words to surface-level meanings and develop a richer interpretation.

Critical reading aims at deep analysis of a narrative: its structure, its weave, and its waft (metaphor for the fabric of the text) rather than solely enjoyment or comprehension.
Guidance to connect with prior coursework: reference to the lecture I, “Comp II Basics,” accessible under the “lectures” tab on Bb; revisit that lecture and slides to tie ideas together.

Reading: allows understanding and appreciation; focuses on meaning and engagement with the text.
Critical reading: emphasizes deep analysis of how the narrative is built—structures, devices, and choices that shape meaning.
The goal of critical reading is not just what the text says, but how the text says it and why it matters to the reader.

Writing (general): presupposes knowledge of content, meaning, and purpose; organizes ideas into coherent structures based on what the writer believes offers the most meaning and clarity.
Critical writing: engages with the question “how”; seeks to understand how elements of the text influence opinions and interpretations, and how they relate to the narrative’s events, messages, or vocabulary.
Analytical responses: by asking how the introduction influences opinion or how the depiction of the main character affects the reader, writers produce more analytical and original responses that are situated within the narrative’s content.
Validation and credibility: when a writer’s opinions can be supported by content from the narrative, credibility is gained.
Identity and meaning-making: our meaning-making patterns stem from who we are as human subjects; when articulated meanings and ideas can be situated within the narrative content and justified by it, they support valid critical writing.

Core idea: The difference between writing and critical writing can be summed up as knowing answers to the question “how.”
Writing vs. critical writing in terms of aims:
- Writing articulates ideas from a space of knowledge, understanding, and clarity.
- Critical writing asks how ideas are meaningful, clear, or relevant; how a narrative impacts a reader; and how that impact affects its overall appeal.

Use the question “how” to interrogate text:
- How does the introduction influence my opinion?
- How does the depiction of the main character affect me as a reader?
- How does the narrative’s events, vocabulary, and structure connect to my understanding and interpretation?
The aim is to generate analytical, original, text-anchored responses rather than surface-level summaries.

When opinions can be validated with direct content from the narrative, writer credibility increases.
The writer’s meaning-making patterns are influenced by the writer’s own subjectivity; nonetheless, strong critical writing connects those patterns to the text and justifies them through textual evidence.

The core distinction can be framed as answering the question “how.”
Writing (non-critical) expresses knowledge and understanding; critical writing explains how aspects of the text are meaningful, how they clarify or make sense, how the narrative impacts readers, and how that impact shapes the text’s appeal.

Subjectivity matters: acknowledging that interpretations are influenced by personal beliefs and value systems.
Ethical and philosophical implications: critical reading and writing require justification with textual evidence, which promotes accountability and thoughtful analysis.
Real-world relevance: the same critical approach can be applied to poetry, short stories, articles, and other narrative forms to uncover structure, devices, and persuasive effects.