In this commentary, the author responds to three articles using affect studies to rethink literacy, in Reading Research Quarterly’s special issue on affect theory. Taking up how the three articles—by Boldt; Truman, Hackett, Pahl, Davies, and Escott; and Tanner, Leander, and Carter‐Stone—draw on divergent genealogies of affect theory, the author proposes that the ability of affect to capaciously capture such different approaches is one of its most important strengths. The author ends by considering the problem of borders as it appears across all three articles, ultimately arguing that the vagueness of concepts drawn from affect literacy is precisely what makes it an invaluable concept for thinking through how we may care for the literacies that sustain us.

中文翻译：

---

模糊与关怀：关于情感与素养

在这篇评论中，作者在《阅读研究季刊》有关情感理论的特刊中，对三篇使用情感研究重新思考素养的文章做出了回应。讨论Boldt撰写的三篇文章的内容；杜鲁门，哈克特，帕尔，戴维斯和埃斯科特；丹纳（Tanner），利安德（Leander）和卡特-斯通（Carter-Stone）运用了不同的情感理论家谱，作者认为情感的能力是他们最重要的优势之一，它能够有效地捕获这种不同的方法。作者首先考虑了所有三篇文章中都提到的边界问题，最终认为，影响读写能力的概念的含糊不清正是使它成为思考我们如何关心维持我们的读写能力的不可估量的概念。