I'm running into the problem of mimetic criticism in my readings for a chapter on María Zambrano. 90% of what I'm reading is an imitation of Zambrano's own flowery style used to summarize Zambrano's ideas. The critics have no distance at all from their object of study. They rarely if ever disagree with her or criticize any position she takes. I cannot say this criticism is wrong, inaccurate, but it doesn't tell me anything that I couldn't also get from Zambrano's own work, because the critical metalanguage is simply taken from Zambrano's own discursive practice.
I am not saying that criticism of Zambrano should be hostile or unsympathetic, but I'd like at least a smidgeon of resistance or ambivalence, some wedge of respectful disagreement.