Close Reading

This is a reading style that we still practice, but it strains against the contemporary way that we view knowledge. It looks for a “true” or “accurate” reading of the text, where the meaning of the text stems from the author and the text itself. This “true” reading would be done through a textual analysis--looking directly at the text for meaning. It would not leave the text to look at things like the larger cultural context or additional texts that the studied text was in conversation with.

This is contrary to how we view knowledge in our age: we are no longer merely the consumers of texts but the producers of meaning as we construct meaning with the author by engaging with the text. Our view of the text is then backed up with arguments and might compete directly with other readings of the text. The “truth” about a text, then, is established through argument.

This perspective on the construction of meaning aside, it is useful to consider close reading for our purposes as simply attending closely to the text itself from an open position of inquiry, a mindset of acceptance toward the work and the author’s intent (to the best of your understanding and ability).

Reading Like a Writer

This approach to reading assumes that writing consists of a series of deliberate choices made by writer (choices that were made against/instead of other choices) and that by readings texts as writers--thinking that A) we ourselves are writers and B) that we can analyze a piece of writing to better our understanding of how it functions--we can create similar effects in our own texts. It goes beyond simply looking for the meaning of the text toward thinking of the text as a kind of writing-blueprint, and looking at the blueprint to better understand how you might construct/build a structure in your own text that functions in a similar manner.

You can Read like a Writer by actively considering portions of text that you find effective, persuasive, enjoyable, or what-have-you and then deliberately emulate the move in your own text.

Critical Reading

Critical Reading is likely the reading strategy that you are the most familiar with. It might be helpful to consider Critical Reading as “resistant reading” where you as the reader take an oppositional stance to the text, judging it, evaluating it, and critiquing. Peter Elbow, a well-known writing theorist and teacher, popularized an activity called “The Believing and Doubting Game” wherein readers (and writers) take both “believing” and “doubting” approaches to the text. Critical Reading requires this “doubting” approach. To further qualify the approach, I would suggest that it is more beneficial to think of yourself as a safety investigator who has been tasked with ensuring that a structure is fit for habitation. Your job is to scour the entire building (the text) and test the structure for weakness.

Rhetorical Reading

What is your purpose in the reading?
What is the author’s purpose?
What is the context or situation that calls for the reading?
What is the context or situation that caused the writing to be produced?
Reading is a means of positioning yourself within the conversation, first learning where others stand and then taking a stand yourself (Bean 5).
Remember that writing is a social act. Every time you write, you are attempting to enter this conversation.

Rhetorical reading consists of determining your purpose for reading in relation to the writer’s purpose for writing as well as attending yourself to the rhetorical features of the text that you are reading (Bean 3). The most common form of rhetorical reading we will practice this semester will be identifying and analyzing the rhetorical context of a text. If we think of texts as persuasive in nature (even if their purpose is simply to inform, it is likely that the text is performing some persuasive function), the rhetorical context consists of the circumstances in which the rhetorical action occurs. The rhetorical context consists of several aspects:

Genre:

The specific categorical type of the writing. Genres have their own rules and expectations that shape the form of the text.

Situation/Occasion:

These terms are sometimes used in lieu of one another in definitions of rhetorical context, but I find them to be largely interchangeable, or at least closely related. Situation and/or Occasion refers to the specific motivator that caused the author to create the text. For instance, an opinion piece on foreign policy might be written in response to recent occurrences in the world, and the writer might attempt to persuade the reader that a certain domestic response is warranted. Essentially, the situation is the driving force that gets the writer’s butt to their writing chair and sets their fingers tapping.

Audience:

Perhaps the most important aspect of rhetorical context (both as a reader and a writer) is understanding the audience. Audience consists of the individuals and/or groups that that the writer intends to reach with her work. This intended audience might differ from the audience that actually reads the work (Lunsford, Ruszkiewicz, and Walters), but it is the group that the author intended to reach with the work, and it is the factor that has the largest impact on the overall text with the exception, perhaps, of genre.

Purpose:

Just as writers have intended audiences in mind, so, too, do they write for specific purposes. Likewise, just as the other aspects of rhetorical context shape the text, the author’s purpose also affects the text.

By actively seeking to identify the rhetorical context, we practice an essential part of rhetorical reading. Reading that seeks to analyze how a text achieves a certain rhetorical effect (not merely what a text says) is also considered rhetorical reading. In this course, we will practice identifying rhetorical context regularly, and we will also have the opportunity to practice other types of rhetorical reading, including rhetorical analysis.