One of the grim paradoxes in philosophy is that we are often most critical of the books we love best. This is why (if you substitute gods for readers and a victorious commander for the author) during the celebration of a Roman triumph, a slave constantly whispered into the victor's ear that he will die. Like Roman gods, philosophical readers destroy those they most favor.
Sebastian Gardner's Kant and the Critique of Pure Reason is a wonderful book, perhaps the best I've read in the genre of introducing canonical philosophical texts. The prose flows and Gardner always keeps clear the relevant problems and how Kant's distinctive contribution addresses them. I'm teaching it this semester in the honors section of my Early Modern class, and the students are loving it as much as I am. Nonetheless, like most philosophical books I love, it irritates me. And I worry that what I find irritating about this book is actually something that grounds an indictment of contemporary English language Kant scholarship. Before getting into this, let me state that I don't think the book's success or pedagogical usefulness rises or falls with the success of the indictment in question. It is a wonderful achievement.
Nonetheless, Gardner's division of Kant scholarship into two camps, Strawsonian and post-Strawsonian, is deeply problematic both in that it neglects the contributions of two (imho) of our greatest living philosophers, John McDowell and Graham Priest, and makes a mockery of the first hundred or so years of thinking about the First Critique. Gardner is of course aware of these figures. In his closing section of the book on the reception of Kant he mentions McDowell (as one of the two examples of continued Strawsonianism) and Beiser's histories of Kant's reception. Nonetheless, the way he divides the critical landscape between Strawsonians and non-Strawsonians is expressive of a lack of philosophical sensitivity perhaps characteristic of the community of English language Kant scholars.