Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading
Jul. 17th, 2021 01:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alias_sqbrFor anyone who didn't see it on sqbr, I posted the notes while reading Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Introduction Is about You".
This is a 1997 queer studies paper about the limits of 'paranoid'/fear-based readings which focus on finding the hidden, darker meanings of things, and how these can end up suppressing other sorts of readings. She suggests that paranoia has its place, but we would benefit from creating space for the full range of emotions, in criticism and life in general. I didn't like/agree with all of the paper (especially the way she blurs the line between mental health diagnosis and critical theory) but it was certainly interesting and got me thinking.
I'm sure I misunderstood some parts, the original paper is a better option for anyone who feels up to reading it, and I link to a few versions of it. But my notes might be helpful as a glossary and relatively accessible summary for anyone else who has trouble parsing humanities papers.
I'm cross-posting here since my interest in the topic relates to how I write reviews and meta.
sqbr, I posted the notes while reading Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick's "Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You're So Paranoid, You Probably Think This Introduction Is about You". This is a 1997 queer studies paper about the limits of 'paranoid'/fear-based readings which focus on finding the hidden, darker meanings of things, and how these can end up suppressing other sorts of readings. She suggests that paranoia has its place, but we would benefit from creating space for the full range of emotions, in criticism and life in general. I didn't like/agree with all of the paper (especially the way she blurs the line between mental health diagnosis and critical theory) but it was certainly interesting and got me thinking.
I'm sure I misunderstood some parts, the original paper is a better option for anyone who feels up to reading it, and I link to a few versions of it. But my notes might be helpful as a glossary and relatively accessible summary for anyone else who has trouble parsing humanities papers.
I'm cross-posting here since my interest in the topic relates to how I write reviews and meta.
