I’m reading this this morning before I start with my other tasks, and I’m finding it an interesting and useful recap of the presence of reading in what they’re calling English studies (a term designed to weld the fields of composition and literature together). My only minor quibble is that (as seems to often happen) they seem to paint comp theorists with a broad, derogatory brush, blaming them to a degree for de-emphasizing reading in comp. They find this troubling particularly because they credit the comp folks for valuing student texts in the first place and providing impetus to reader-response theories. They don’t name names, which I completely understand, but which also takes away from the effectiveness of what they’re arguing.
My complaint here is that too often the work of individuals gets turned into something that it’s not, detracting from the need for dissenting voices and from the pursuit of necessary, if perhaps unpopular, conversational threads. The theorists in question might even have been assholes, and their work might have turned out to be completely wrong and/or unnecessary, but to portray them as somehow driving the study of reading out of English studies is a bit of an overreach.