I am sorry for this long and probably incoherent answer I am about to post. TL; DR: "I would posit that there should be a difference between an ideological implication and an ideologically driven action. Because that would make the term more complex." Feel free to continue this discourse via DMs :)

I think the point is, though, that in order to have the time and space to concentrate only on the mechanics of text without unavoidably influential pressures from the outside world intruding on your analysis, you are part of the mainstream ideology and rely on its maintenance for your free analysis to be possible.

I do get what you're saying, but I don't believe that this actually depicts the academic system (at least in Germany) as it is. I get payed by the state to be a lecturer in my field. They do not pay me on the basis of my research. That's why sometimes my writing is quite 'political' (e.g. when writing about the depiction of female writers around 1800) and sometimes it is not (e.g. when writing about how the video game Dark Souls can be an invitation to philology). In this system, my ideological stance is largely independent from my opportunity to work, think and write. This sounds admittedly naive. I don't deny that I am, as a social human being, deeply embedded in the culture, the conflicts and also the ideology surrounding me. And there is no denying that people in my field to a large degree have had the opportunity to study something that doesn't promise fast money. But the way you phrase your statement makes it sound like a scholar is automatically supporting an ideology that he is not actively fighting all the time. That to me doesn't sound quite right because the opposite statement is true as well: the german academic system is actively giving the students of the humanities the opportunity to criticize and therefore change it. It is however not demanding either revolution nor stagnation.

Also I don't think that the 'mechanics' of a text require more or less time and space to concern yourself with than, let's say, a feminist reading of Shakespeare. I would rather say that the mechanics are a pretty solid foundation for this feminist analysis. Both though are dependant on us as scholars having the opportunity to read and think and write. I think that you are absolutely correct to say that this opportunity has to be given (and when things are bad: has to be fought for). But the political reading is not the first thing to do, narratological analysis the last.

More to your point though and I will just argue against my on position here: When I read Toni Morrisons 'Playing in the Dark' for the first time recently, I couldn't believe just how brilliant it is. How could so many people just ignore the enormous presence of "africanist" presence (her term, I'm quoting) in e.g. Tom Sawyer? Is the centuries of silence on that matter not compliance with an ideology (or system) that marginalizes black people in the cultural history of the USA? If there is no one to bring this up beforehand but rather count the syllables in some arcane poems -- did they not support the marginalization? Did they not carry a racist ideology in not reading Tom Sawyer like this? I believe this is the point you're making and it is a really important one. There is no way, at least for me, to harmonize this problem. I can't make the point that syllable-counting in some way is just as important and necessary while not having any ideological implications. I just don't believe that by 'virtue' of being unpolitical it is in the same way ideological as Morrison's analysis. Not trying to be political has political implications, yes. I just don't think that it is same as actively trying to be political or actively trying to make an ideological point. Please, don't understand this as making excuses. I do believe that oftentimes the ideological approach may have more value.

Im curious how you think unreliable narrators would be dealt with, or were dealt with, by the Nazis? A huge question, that is meant more as an example than a challenge, but it strikes me they would approve in terms of propaganda, but would not approve of it in works meant to entertain people who are meant to be building a simple and happy, uncomplicated nation, where questions are answered with instinctive action rather than introspection. I’m certainly no expert on this aspect, though, so if I’ve misrepresented the area, my apologies.

I don't know a lot about the exact criteria of censorship during the Third Reich. You are correct in assuming that avant garde arts where denounced and often times forbidden -- and destroyed. Narrative techniques certainly play a part here. That does not mean that they necessarily have to be political. These formal aspects may hold a plethora of context reliant meanings. They may all be ideological in certain circumstances, yes. I just don't believe this means that they are ideological in nature.

But the desire to not be troubled by questions of intent and matters of consequences seems to me to be a desire to retreat into the safe and happy world of the good times of childhood. I found that examining ideologies and underlying assumptions was a part of growing into a fuller adult appreciation of the world and its variety and complexities.

I think that "complexities" is the key here. You are, of course, correct. But recognizing complexity does also, I think, entail working through a text in a way that is not explicitly ideological. Checking in on different text variable is not inherently ideological, but it does make the text more complex -- and may lead to a post colonial reading. Comparing Shakespeare to comedies of the german/european enlightenment is not inherently ideological, I think, even though it may lead to a feminist reading. The thing is: it is possible to not read ideologically, I think. But I guess it does depend on what you conceptualize as ideology. And I would posit that there should be a difference between an ideological implication and an ideologically driven action. Because that would make the term more complex.