Text 1: Critic Park argues that close reading — careful attention to a literary text's specific language — is the irreplaceable foundation of literary study. Without it, scholarly arguments float free of evidence; with it, even short passages yield rich and contestable readings.
Text 2: Critic Singh shares Park's commitment to attentive reading but argues that close reading alone reproduces a narrow canon. By privileging dense, ambiguous prose over straightforward narrative, the technique tends to elevate writers (often white, male, modernist) whose work rewards intricate analysis while marginalizing literatures whose power lies elsewhere — in oral cadence, communal use, political directness.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's case for close reading?
- Acheck_circle
She would accept its value while arguing that exclusive reliance on it can narrow what counts as literature.
- B
She would propose that close reading should be the only method.
- C
She would deny that any literature exists outside complex modernist prose.
- D
She would reject close reading as a worthless practice.
Explanation
Singh shares Park's commitment but argues against exclusive reliance on close reading. B captures this nuance. A, C, and D contradict her.