I've actually had the experience of not wanting to read something too closely, in fear that I would get too critical.  When reading tenure evaluations and the like, or for book reviews. Sometimes I smell blood in the water and I know that I could be even more critical than I am, if I were too look at every claim and assertion with more scrutiny.  With the Orringer book I've noticed a tendency toward loose analogies that seem to have assertive content but are really just rhetorical flourishes with very little that could be verified (or falsified for that matter).  I kind of hoped the book would be bit better. It does have some strong points as well, but I'm sure I could find something to query every two pages or so.