I would I were a Reading.

The obsession, bordering on anxiety, which is present in the study of English re: ‘readings’ is something that interests me largely because I have somehow managed to evade it. What I, and Edmundson, define as reading are (put conveniently) the critical “isms” that distinguish one school of thought from another. To use his words readings are “the application of an analytical vocabulary” (p. 56) I am not naive enough to think that I have evaded them in terms of them having not impacted or influenced my thoughts at all, what I mean is the anxiety and need to attach a specific ‘ism’ to different methods and approaches to writing and analysis is not something that has confronted me. Edmundson expresses a wish to completely disregard distinguishing between the schools, and encourage students to do likewise- but I think, for the large part, at least in classes I have taken, this has been done. I have never encountered a lecturer or tutor who has gotten bogged down in deciphering the various isms, obsessed with cataloguing texts according to isms, or enforced the ideology of a certain ism on students. Isms are most definitely helpful, and to neglect them entirely would be, I feel, foolhardy. Being aware of isms is helpful in that they can help one navigate a text and discern meaning in ways that another vernacular would not allow. However the obsession Edmundson is wary of is also foolish, and he is right to be wary- asserting a belief in one type of ism would be constricting and most definitely encroach on fresh literary composition. Edmundson fears that readings can only be restrictive arguing “…then readings will only get in your way” (p.61), however I don’t find this particularly helpful as disregarding readings as an impediment is just as confining as the diligent, slavish use of them. The total neglect of reading denies the critic/ reader of a vast and often rich vocabulary that can be helpful. Instead of arguing for a repudiation of reading, I think there needs to be a revision of the faith placed in them- and perhaps considering them as textual constructs themselves (ones capable of illuminating and complementing a work of fiction) would be more useful. Edmundson’s snide comment about the ‘corrective’ application of readings is I suppose valid if that were the approach being taught, but I honestly can’t see that it is. Readings as a corrective method has fallen out of favour (his wish realised). Usurping its position is a more interpretive approach that considers readings but does not position them as an omniscient authority.