How to Read and Analyze Writing Critically
Reading critically, much like thinking critically, is a skill you learn and developânot something that youâre born with. All those English classes about blue curtains and the symbolism in Shakespeare (that we made fun of) are about teaching this skill. Itâs the difference between rating a book one star because you felt tense and uncomfortable over the conflict, and rating it one star because it wasnât built with tact or intention.
The very first thing you need to know about reading critically is this:
Everything you read is written with intention.
Even if it wasnât intentional, all writing contains political implications anyway and itâs the authorâs job to be able to see those implications.
Which means, in turn, if youâre a writer, you are responsible for the implications of your work whether you meant it that way or not.
This is a good thing! This is how we hold people accountable for bigoted or otherwise biased work, and how we can make positive changes to our work when someone else points out something we didnât see. The point is in the trying, and the constant improving, and the best way to improve is to start here: by learning how to read (yours and others) work critically.
Most people, when starting out in reading and media analysis, start with this question: do I like it or not?
But in true analysisâwhen weâre trying to recognize what a piece of work is attempting to doâwhether or not you like the work isnât a very helpful question to answer on its own. What you really want to be asking is: why?
Why was the decision made? Why do you like/dislike it?
Our likes and dislikes are good indicators of our intuition. If something makes you feel itchy or wrong, itâs not enough in analysis to then say, âthis is bad because it made me feel uncomfortable." You need to then ask, âwhy does this make me feel uncomfortable?â Because maybe the answer is, âbecause the protagonist is being treated like a stereotype. Thus, this piece of writing is biased.â Thereâs a basis for true critique there. If the answer is, âbecause my personal experiences make me uncomfortable with sibling rivalry.â Your feelings are certainly valid, but they arenât a basis for critique of the work itself (unless the author claimed the work was perfect for people with your specific personal experience).
Do you see the difference? Likes and dislikes are important, but they are only one step in the broader question.
Everything is written with intention, which means the very words the author uses are chosen with precise care to elicit a specific feeling or experience within the reader.
For example, maybe you read a passage and it makes you feel a little grossâdig into the word choices here, maybe they used a word like âmoistâ. Many people make the mistake of then saying: âthis passage was so gross, who even says moist?â without considering that this was a very intentional decision to make you squirmâthis passage was meant to illicit that feeling.
When a piece does exactly what itâs set out to do, and contains the messages it has intended to make, it has done a good job as a piece of writing. You can still critique a work like this, however, and it is very important to do so. For example, what if the author set out to create a message that was politically incorrect? Or what if they intended their word choice to bully a certain experience or person?
Thatâs level two analysisâitâs taking the work outside of itself and into our current and historical world. So you can say, âthis workâs word choices intentionally dehumanizes women, which reflects the authorâs political standpoint. A work like this is problematic for a countless number of social, historical, and political reasons.â
This is an important step, especially when weâre considering works from the past. We can acknowledge the things that these works did well, while also bringing it into the present day to analyze its political messages.
However! This is also a tricky step, because what if that work that dehumanizes women is, in itself, a critique on thinking patterns present in a patriarchal system?
Weâd have to look into the time the work came out, the history and views of the author, whether it was claimed that this work was a critique or satire, and if, in that case, it achieves its job in being a critique (usually found in the theme/ending of the overall workâlike if the protagonist who dehumanizes women gets speared to death at the end or something).
True analysis takes work and research like this, and thereâs never really any one correct answer. Some will argue that a work knows its own message and is thus critiquing itself, whereas others may argue it doesnât. Whatâs important is that youâre as informed as you can be on a work, and your stance is backed by this research and knowledge.
Itâs okay to admonish a âgoodâ work for an unclear message or intention. Itâs okay to admonish a âgoodâ work from the past that has problematic messaging. These stances are up to you.
So how does this apply to your own work?
The more analysis and critical reading you do, the more youâll be able to pick out in all worksâincluding your own. Being able to see how killing off a certain character at the end changes the theme of your work, or carries an implicit message about people like that character, is incredibly important to writing with intention, and making sure youâre saying what you want to say.
It takes practice, time, and knowledge about our political and social world today. Stay informed, keep analyzing old and new works, and be open to second opinions and diverse perspectives that may point out messaging in your works you hadnât considered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Psst... Did you know I launched a website?)
Head on over to www.gatesannai.com (or click here!) for exclusive blog posts, updates on my work, and pictures of my dog.
While you're there, consider signing up for my newsletter too :-)
