Level I, II, and III readers are all interested in discussing if and how a text works. But while this concern is the purview of many levels of readers, L1 concerns are often personal, isolated, and structural rather than critical or analytical. By themselves there is little room for this type of discussion in intellectual literary conversations; Personal LI discussions should be avoided for class altogether. However, Structural L1 concerns should not be dismissed entirely as they are often the foundation to L2 and L3 concerns. Because Structural L1 concerns are about the text in isolation, though, they should only be used as a steppingstone to truly critical and analytical thought, which reflects a contextual knowledge beyond the scope of the text by itself.

Level 1 -Visceral -Isolated Stop! This is not critical analysis.  Move on to Level II	Personal: Do I like this text? Am I moved by this text? Is this a "good read"? What does this remind me of? What lessons are offered in this text? Did I learn anything from this text? Will this be a popular text?	Stop! Not relevant to critical analysis.
	Structural: How does this book work? What is this book about? Is the tone and pace of the novel maintained? Are the course of events reasonable in context? Are the characters' actions and motivations logical in context? Does the author work to create verisimilitude? Is there enough detail? Too much? Are the themes too obviously superimposed over the plot? What motifs are present?	Caution! Use only to set up critical analysis.

L2 readers are able to discuss a text in context, which means they are pulling from a repertoire of other texts of its kind, scholarly articles, critical theories, lectures, class discussions, information from other classes, pop culture, intertextual references, etc. But L2 readers don't stop at just pointing to comparisons and connections. L2 readers apply analytical terms and ideas and articulate ideas in unexpected ways to engender innovative and productive conversations. Like L3 readers, L2 readers are interested in conversations about ideology, namely how a book works and doesn't work ideologically.

Level 2 -Intellectual -Contextual -Academic Critical Analysis	Contextual: Is this book more or less TCP? How does this compare to other texts of the same genre? To other texts we've read in class? What intertextual references are made (and what kind are they)? How do other classes I have taken help me to understand this book? Who is the ideal audience for this book? How do the paratextual elements influence this text? How has this book been reviewed? If from a series, what kind of series? How does this series challenge or reconcile issues in the first book?	Be careful! Has effectual limits.
	Ideological and Theoretical:  How does this book not work? What gaps are present? How does the author ask me to read this book? What are the implications of the Structural and Contextual findings? What narrative about children is the author buying into (Patronizing/Productive)? Is this text more Adult Centered or Child Centered? What are the text's passive and surface ideologies? How do they work with and against one another?   What critical theory (Marxist, feminist, Foucauldian, Lacanian, etc) is most productively applied to this text?	Go Ahead! This is academic critical analysis.

L3 readers are typically (but not always) graduate students or professionals in a given field who have immersed themselves in the discourse of a particular scholarly community. These readers' ideas are ready for public consumption and can stand up to even the closest of scrutiny. That is not always the case, however, and this type of work is what you should aim for. Our goal should always be to move beyond merely exercise and into the real world of ideas.

Level 3 -Instinctive -Public -Scholarly Critical Analysis	Discourse Community Fluent: How would Children's Literature scholars receive this book? What are the conversations surrounding this text? Has someone written about it? What is his/her thesis? Who has written about books like this? What is his/her thesis? Is this book so terrible it's good? Why? Does the author seem to be responding to trends or creating organically? Does this text seem to be manufactured?	Keep Going!
	Public Audience Ready: How does this book help me to articulate an idea that reflects my awareness of the field (literature and criticism) and my ability to posit new ideas? What patterns does this book buy into or flaunt? How can my discussion of this book match the needs of a scholarly audience? How can I enter into and add to the conversation that already exists around this book? What do I have to say that is different and interesting? How do my ideas challenge, modify, or add onto existing ideas? Have I considered all sides of the discussion? Have I read all relevant criticism? Who would be interested in hearing this argument? In what forum should I present my findings?	Wow! Submit that abstract!