In history, historical context is everything.

There are three contexts here:

First, the context of Said's publication itself. His work offered a dramatic reframing of historical explanation, an intelligent demonstration of Foucault-inspired poststructural methodology, and a slap in the face to conservative scholarship. (by 'conservative' I mean in method, not necessarily in politics, though the two sometimes overlap, but often do not.) In other words, it was a dramatic step... and, like most dramatic steps, looks much less dramatic in hindsight, once everyone has been familiar with the gist of the argument for several decades. I recently assigned Said in a grad seminar, for instance, and I found it tedious. (you could never get away with that kind of sweeping generalization today. And his writing...!) But I've read three decades of work that takes Said-style scholarship three steps further, and does it better. (Just like if you saw The Maltese Falcon or The Matrix on their initial screenings, you were stunned... but most of us see them after decades of homages and imitations, so they come across as pretty trite.) In short, your professor, like Pepperidge Farm, remembers "what it was like" before Said, and you do not, and your professor is trying to tell you that.

Secondly, Said was hugely controversial. And this was not just in the world of academic print, but played out in departmental politics as well. Old-Boy sexist fuddy-duddy-Has-Beens would rail against Said and his 'weak' grasp of history; Young-Turk angry-feminist wanna-burn-down-the-applecart-and-Change-The-Worlders championed him as the Isaac Newton of History. <I'm intentionally trying to use language that each side would "see" and describe the other as, here--no personal judgements of mine are intended to be offered.>

And these fights got ugly. Dropping Said's name in a job-talk at a university could cost you a job offer. NOT dropping his name could cost you a job offer. Your professor, should she be old enough, probably had 'skin in the game' in these fights--i.e. might well have battled furiously, suffered slights and setbacks, and herself inflicted damage on opponents. Now, the Said Wars, like the Cola Wars, are officially Over, and the Saidians (if we can use that that term) emerged more or less victorious* (with an asterisk) awhile ago.

And the last thing your professor wants to deal with is some young punk grad student resurrecting all the old unfounded criticisms she suffered two decades ago, especially since the aforementioned young punk has never published a thing him/herself in his/her life.

<EDIT: the phrase "young punk" was not meant by me to describe OP--apologies if taken that way--but rather, meant to emphasize the 'inner dialogue' that we professors sometimes engage in, even at the time we are striving to relate in a gentler and more diplomatic voice>

The third context is you: were you phrasing critical questions in obnoxious ways? (either too much snark, or too much ignorance?) I've often had to gently chide grad students for questions that make them sound a bit ignorant... because the questions reveal too much. (Usually, too much about their own political leanings or too much about how little the student knows).

So, my suggestion is, yes, definitely dig around to find contemporary criticisms of Said. Then go further, and find criticisms of those criticisms. Be careful to phrase your discussion questions as genuine questions, not as "loaded" statements designed to convey judgements. And always keep in mind each of the three contexts above, and approach the discussion questions with some humility.

In grad programs, the first thing we train for is analytical sharpness. (how to shred a book) The second thing is empirical thoroughness. (how to do research) The third thing, though, is sensitivity: as scholars, we need to be closely tuned to the contexts (emotional as well as intellectual), understand the complexities of contingency, and--above all--keep humanity (our humanity and the humanity of our subjects) always firmly in view. Often, this sensitivity comes last, because it can undermine the first (analytical sharpness). But it's the most important. And scholars without it often don't do very well.

I mean, speaking as a recently graduated graduate student, I think the first step towards proceeding tactfully is not to go to the internet - strangers - with a complaint about your professor... but since you're here....

I don't know how your class is organized. I don't know if preparing 10 questions is the norm. That feels like a lot to cover in a session. What does feel familiar to me is the reviews your professor gave you. In the graduate seminars I attended where students led a session, the leader presented the work and presented its reception in the academic community (or other community of interest); we didn't usually attempt to offer an original critique. Reading the reviews was just as important as reading the book. The fact that your prof handed you reviews suggests that perhaps you overlooked this step (the students in the classes I took were responsible for finding their own). This doesn't prevent you from raising criticisms. Go find some critical reviews and cite them in the part of your presentation about the reception of Said. That takes the blame off of you for placing supposedly undeserved criticisms on Said. Your only responsibility then is for giving the reviews air time. I would avoid people like Samuel Huntington. I don't know if he reviewed Orientalism, but if he did I don't think discussing that review would go over well, for good reasons.

The point is to locate Said in your field and to cover the topics that you need to mention him in when you write a bibliography.

About the literary critic/historian problem, I'm guessing you're not some sort of Classicist. For ancient Greece and Rome types it's all literature. Except Foucault. He couldn't history his way out of a paper bag. And sometimes I wish Camus were better on his history... oh, ok, sometimes the generic conventions of modern historical writing matter, I guess....

About Orientalism itself, perhaps because Classics and Roman history is so influenced by literature, I'm not aware of criticisms of Said that are weighed heavily against his contributions. Edith Hall in her book on barbarians has a whole chapter dedicated to orientalism, for instance. I read Said in an undergraduate political science class. Everyone in grad school with me just knew his book already.