B com 4th sem - gfgc.kar.nic.in · Reader-ResponseCriticism...

wolfgangIser/"IndeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProseFiction"-summaryWolfgangIser/ "IndeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProseFiction"(1971)

WolfgangIser's1971"IndeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProseFiction"dealswiththenatureof

therelationshipformedbetweenthereaderandtheliterarytext.

Iseropens"indeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProseFiction"claimingthathermeneuticsand

interpretationwerealwayssuspiciousofthemanifestedform ofprosefiction,believingthatthemeaning

isalwayssomewherebehindthetext,waitingtobediscoveredanddeterminedbytheactof

interoperation. Iser'smainproblem withthisperceptionofproseistheinvalidassumptionofafixed

meaningofatextwaitingtobeunraveled.Reading,Iserholds,isanaction,andasanactionitalways

involvestheactorasanindividual.Itisthereaderwhoactivelyrespondstothetext,andhedoessoin

relationtothetextanditscontentbutalsoinaccordancewithhisownidiosyncraticknowledge,

tendencies,experienceetc.meaning,forIser,isnotsomethingembeddedinthetextbutrathersomething

whichliesinthecomplexrelationshipbetweenthereaderandthetext.

Therefore,Iser's "IndeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProseFiction"isanattempttodiscussthe

natureofrelationshipsbetweenthereaderandprosefiction.Iserstartsbydefiningthestatusofthe

literarytextasonewhichstands"halfway"betweentheactualworldofreferentialmeaningandthe

readers'ownpersonexperience.

AnotherpointmadebyIseristheprosefictionisneverfullydetermined,neverfullydefinded.Thereason

forthisisthatforeveryinformationprovidedthereisinformationleftout,andforeverymannerinwhich

anobjectispresentedinthetexttheremightbeotherswaystocomprehendit,waysthatthereaderis

awareof.Everygapisfilledinbythereaderaccordingtohisownpersonalpreferences,tendenciesand

thewayheexperiencestheworld.

Everytext,accordingtoIser,invitedacertaindegreeofparticipationfrom thereader.Whatisexplicitly

saidbythetextneverexhaustsitsfullintentions.However,notallprosefictioninvitesreader's

participationtothesameextentandherewearriveatthehistoricalpartofIser's "Indeterminacyandthe

Reader'sResponseinProseFiction".Iserholdsthatmodern20th centuryprosefictiontendstobemore

undetermined,invokinggreaterreaderparticipationincomparisonwithearlier18th and19th prosefiction.

Suchmodernprose(IserillustratesthisthroughJamesJoyce,HenryFieldingandWilliam Thackeray)

utilizedtheessentialgap-fillingrequirementsofreadingasacentral,notjustcollateral,part.Readers,

accordingtoIser,areconstantlyinvokedtotakepart,tobringthemselves,andtochallengetheirown

perceptionsintheirinteractionwiththetext.Therealityofsuchprosefictionbecomesdependantonthe

reader.

InconcludingthesummaryofWolfgangIser's"IndeterminacyandtheReader'sResponseinProse

Fiction"themainpointunderstoodisthatprosefictionisn'tjustwhatissays,butalsowhatitdoesn’tsay,

becausethatiswherethereadergetstowork,becomingapartnerintheprocessofcreatingmeaning.

Themoreundeterminedthetext,therethereaderhasachancetoseehimselfreflectedfrom thepagesof

thebook.

Reader-ResponseCriticism

Criticalapproachestoliteraturethatstressthevalidityofreaderresponsetoa

text,theorizingthateachinterpretationisvalidinthecontextfrom whicha

readerapproachesatext.

Reader-responsecriticism aroseasacriticaltheoryinresponsetoformalist

interpretationsofliterature.Unlikethelatter,whichstressedtheprimacyof

thetextandanobjectiveinterpretationofitbasedonestablishedcriteria,

advocatesofreader-responsecriticism focusedontheimportanceofthe

readerandtheirindividual,subjectiveresponsetothetext.Oneoftheearliest

proponentsofthistheorywasLouiseRosenblatt,whostatedinher Literature

asExploration (1938)that“apoem iswhatthereaderlivesthroughunderthe

guidanceofthetextandexperiencesasrelevanttothetext.”Thesignificance

Rosenblattandotherreader-responsecriticsplacedonthereaderwasin

directoppositiontothepositiontakenbyformalistcriticsinthepast—for

them,thetextwastheprimaryfocus,anditsimpactonthereaderortheidea

thatthereader'sresponsewasinanywayrelevantintheinterpretationofthe

workwasinconceivable.

InadditiontoRosenblatt,otherinfluentialreader-responsecriticsinclude

StanleyFishandWolfgangIser,bothofwhom arguedagainstregarding

literaryworksasobjects.Inhisessayonreader-responsecriticism,Steven

MaillouxexplainsthatFish,Iser,andotherreader-responsecriticsactuallyhad

verydifferentapproachestothecriticalstudyofliterarytexts.However,allof

them wereunanimousintheirrejectionofthe“affectivefallacy”theory

proposedbyWilliam K.WimsattandMonroeC.Beardsleyinaninfluential

essayin1949.Inthisessay,WimsattandBeardsleystatedtheirmisgivings

aboutwhattheytermedas“obstaclestoobjectivecriticism”andthedangers

of“intentionalfallacy”(definedasconfusionbetweenthetextanditsorigins)

and“affectivefallacy”(explainedasthedistinctionthatshouldbemade

betweenwhatatextisandwhatitdoes).AccordingtoWimsattandBeardsley,

aswellasmanyotherformalistcritics,theeffectofthetextonthereader

shouldbeirrelevanttothestudyofthetextbecausethistypeofapproach

leadstothedestructionofthetextasanobjectof“specificallycritical

judgment.”Incontrast,reader-responsecriticsadvocatedtheprimacyofa

reader'sresponsetothetext,stressingthattherewasnosuchthingasan

“objectivelycorrectinterpretation,”saysMailloux.

Duringthelate1970sand1980s,reader-responsecriticism,influencedinpart

bytrendsinotherdisciplines,especiallypsychologyandpsychoanalytical

theories,expandedtoincludeastudyofthereaderassubject,acombination

ofvarioussocialpractices,definedandpositionedsociallybyhisorher

environment.Thisshiftfrom therelationshipbetweenreaderandtext,and

theirmutualimpact,toafocusonself-knowledgeandobservationhasbeen

summarizedinanthologies,includingJaneTompkins's Reader-Response

Criticism:From Formalism toPoststructuralism (1980).Recentworksby

criticsincludingDavidBleich,NormalHolland,andevenStanleyFish,have

alsoexpandedthefocusofreader-responsetheorytoincludethevalidityand

significanceofinterpretationsguidedbytheenvironmentsorcommunities

inhabitedbythereaders.Thisisadeparturefrom theirearlier-heldposition,

whichemphasizedtheprimacyoftherelationshipbetweenreaderandtext,

regardlessofenvironment.Fish,inparticular,laidouthistheoriesregarding

interpretivestrategies,which,hestated,aresharedby“interpretive

communities”inseveralessaysduringthe1980sandlater.Inhisstudyofthe

historyofreader-responsecriticism,TerenceR.Wrightexplainsthatwhilethe

fieldhasexpandeditsboundariestoincludenumerousapproaches,the

concernreader-responsecriticshavewiththeactofreadingremainsconstant.

Whathaschangedistheawarenessthesetheoristsnowhaveofthewaysin

whichenvironment,history,politics,andevensexualorientation,canaffecta

reader'sresponsetoatext.Thisexpansionofcriteriahasledmany

contemporarycriticstorefertothistypeofcriticaltheoryasreader-oriented

criticism ratherthanreader-responsecriticism

WolfgangIserFrom Wikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

WolfgangIser (22July1926–24January2007)wasaGermanliteraryscholar.

Contents

[hide]

1Biography

2Hermeneutics

3Bibliography

4Furtherreading

5References

6Externallinks

Biography[edit]

WolfgangIserwasbornin Marienberg, Germany.HisparentswerePaulandElse(Steinbach)Iser.Hestudiedliteratureintheuniversitiesof Leipzig and Tübingen beforereceivinghis PhD inEnglishat Heidelberg withadissertationontheworldviewof HenryFielding (1950).Ayearlater,IserwasappointedasaninstructoratHeidelbergandin1952asanassistantlectureratthe UniversityofGlasgow.There,Iserbegantoexplorecontemporaryphilosophyandliterature,whichdeepenedhisinterestininter-culturalexchange.Hesubsequentlylecturedinmanyotherpartsoftheworld,includingAsiaandIsrael.HewasmarriedtoLoreIser.

Hermeneutics[edit]

Iserisknownforhis reader-response criticism in literarytheory.Thistheorybegantoevolvein1967,whilehewasworkinginthe UniversityofKonstanz,whichhehelpedtofoundinthe1960s.Togetherwith HansRobertJauss,heisconsideredtobethefounderofthe ConstanceSchool of receptionaesthetics.Inhisapproachtoreader-responsetheory,Iserdescribestheprocessoffirstreading,thesubsequentdevelopmentofthetextintoa'whole',andhowthedialoguebetweenthereaderandtexttakesplace.InhisstudyofShakespeare'shistories,inparticular RichardII,IserinterpretsRichard'scontinuallychanginglegalpolicyasexpressionofthedesireforself-assertion.Herehefollows HansBlumenberg,andattemptstoapplyhistheoryofmodernitytoShakespeare.Inthistheoryofmodernityisself-assertion,whichrespondstothedestructionofscholasticrationalism inthenominalistrevolution(with William ofOckham).

ForIser,meaningisnotanobjecttobefoundwithinatext,butisaneventofconstructionthatoccurssomewherebetweenthetextandthereader.[1] Specifically,areadercomestothetext,whichisafixedworld,butmeaningisrealizedthroughtheactofreadingandhowareaderconnectsthestructuresofthetexttohis/herownexperience.Toillustratethis,Iserusestheexampleofconstellations:“Theimpressionsthatariseasaresultofthisprocesswillvaryfrom individualtoindividual,butonlywithinthelimitsimposedbythewrittenasopposedtotheunwrittentext.Inthesameway,twopeoplegazingatthenightskymaybothbelookingatthesamecollectionofstars,

butonewillseetheimageofaplough,andtheotherwillmakeoutadipper.The‘stars’inaliterarytextarefixed;thelinesthatjointhem arevariable.”[2] Aliterarywork,whichforIseriscreatedwhenareaderandatext“converge,[3] consistsoftwo“poles”:theartistic(theobject,thetextcreatedbytheauthor)andtheaesthetic(therealizationaccomplishedbythereader).[4] BothofthesepolescontributetothetwocentralpointsofIser’stheory:theconceptof“impliedreader”andnarrative“gaps.”

Whenanauthoriscomposingatext,s/hehasaparticularreaderinmind,whichisinpartrepresentedinthetext.Thisreaderisnotidenticaltoareal,flesh-and-bloodreader,butis“atextualstructureanticipatingthepresenceofarecipientwithoutnecessarilydefininghim…theconceptoftheimpliedreaderdesignatesanetworkofresponse-invitingstructures,whichimpelthereadertograspthetext.”[5] Iserseparatestheconceptofimpliedreaderintotwo“interrelatedaspects:thereader’sroleasatextualstructure,andthereader’sroleasastructuredact.”[6]

Thetextualstructurereferstothereader’spoint-of-viewasfoundwithinthetext.Thisstandpointismultifaceted,becausethenarrator,thecharacters,theplot,andthefictitiousreaderalloffersidesofit.[7] Further,thereader’sroleasatextualstructureisdefinedbythe“vantagepointbywhichhejoins[theseperspectives],andthemeetingplacetheyconverge.”[8] All,ascomponentparts,operatetogethertoshapethereader’sroleasfoundwithinthetext.

Thereader’sroleasastructuredactreferstohowareaderfulfillsthetextualstructuresbycausingthem toconvergewithinhis/herimagination.[9] Inotherwords,thetextualstructuresareconnectedandcometolifewhenareadertakespartinthereadingprocess.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthe“real”readersimplyacceptsthisrole,butratherhe/sheexistsintensionbetweenhis/herownhistoricalrealityandexperience,andtheacceptanceofhis/herroleasreader.“Theconceptoftheimpliedreaderasanexpressionoftheroleofferedbythetextisinnowayanabstractionderivedfrom arealreader,butisrathertheconditioningforcebehindaparticularkindoftensionproducedbytherealreaderwhenheacceptstherole.”[10] Thedifferencesbetweentherealreader,andtheroleofthefictitiousreader,produceatensionthatallowsfordifferentconnectionsandreadings.

ForIser,aliteraryworkiscomposedofbothwrittenandunwrittenportionsofatext.Asareaderbeginsthereadingprocess,thesentencesthatmakeupaworknotonlyinform thereaderoftheliterarymovement,butproducecertainexpectationswithinthemindofthereader.[11] However,theseexpectationsarerarelyfulfilled,asatextis“fullofunexpectedtwistsandturns,andfrustrationsofexpectations…Thuswhenevertheflowisinterruptedandweareledoffinunexpecteddirections,theopportunityisgiventoustobringintoplayourownfacultyforestablishingconnections—forfillinginthegapsleftbythetextitself.”[12] Thesegapsaretheunwrittenportionofthetextthatcallsforthereader’sparticipation.Differentreaderswilldecidetofillinthevariousgapsindifferentways,allowingforinexhaustiblerealizationsofthetextwithinitsprovidedinterpretivelimits.[13] Asthereaderreflectsonwhats/hehasreadpreviouslyinthetext,orifs/herereadsthetext,newlightisshedonthehappeningswithinthenarrativeas“certainaspectsofthetextwillassumeasignificancewedidnotattachtothem onafirstreading,whileotherswillrecedeintothebackground.”[14]

Thus,thestructureofatextbringsaboutexpectations,whichareinterruptedbysurprisingunfulfillment,producinggaps,whichrequirefillingbythereadertocreateacoherentflowofthetext.Thesegapsthen,inturn,causethereadertorereadprioreventsinthetextinlightofthosegapfillings.However,thesegapscannotbefilledarbitrarily,butthroughinterpretivelimitsgiveninthetextbyanauthor.Iserfindsthisexperiencetobethebreakdownofthesubject-objectdivision,inthat“textandreadernolongerconfronteachotherasobjectandsubject,butinsteadthe‘division’takesplacewithinthereaderhimself.”[15] Intheactofreading,atextbecomesalivingsubjectwithinthereader.

Bibliography[edit]

DieWeltanschauungHenryFieldings(1952)

WalterPater.DieAutonomiedesÄsthetischen(1960)

DerimpliziteLeser.KommunikationsformendesRomansvonBunyanbisBeckett(1972)

DerAktdesLesens.TheorieästhetischerWirkung(1976)

LaurenceSternes"Tristram Shandy".InszenierteSubjektivität(1987)

ShakespearesHistorien.GenesisundGeltung(1988)

Prospecting:From ReaderResponsetoLiteraryAnthropology(1989)

DasFiktiveunddasImaginäre.PerspektivenliterarischerAnthropologie(1991)

StagingPolitics:TheLastingImpactofShakespeare'sHistories

TheRangeofInterpretation(2000)

HowtoDoTheory(2006)

Furtherreading[edit]

BenDeBruyn: WolfgangIser:ACompanion,Berlin/Boston:DeGruyter,2012. ISBN978-3-11-024551-6.

References[edit]

1. Jumpup̂ Schwáb,Zoltán."MindtheGap:TheImpactofWolfgangIser'sReader-ResponseCriticismonBiblicalStudies--ACriticalAssessment," Literature&Theology,Vol.17,No.2,LiteraryHermeneutics(June,2003),170.

2. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheReadingProcess:aPhenomenologicalApproach,” NewLiteraryHistory, Vol.3,No.2,OnInterpretation:I(Winter,1972),287.



5. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheRudimentsofaTheoryofAestheticResponse,” TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978,34.




9. Jumpup̂ Iser,W

2.

WolfgangIserFrom Wikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

WolfgangIser (22July1926–24January2007)wasaGermanliteraryscholar.

Contents

[hide]

1Biography

2Hermeneutics

3Bibliography

4Furtherreading

5References

6Externallinks

Biography[edit]

WolfgangIserwasbornin Marienberg, Germany.HisparentswerePaulandElse(Steinbach)Iser.Hestudiedliteratureintheuniversitiesof Leipzig and Tübingen beforereceivinghis PhD inEnglishat Heidelberg withadissertationontheworldviewof HenryFielding (1950).Ayearlater,IserwasappointedasaninstructoratHeidelbergandin1952asanassistantlectureratthe UniversityofGlasgow.There,Iserbegantoexplorecontemporaryphilosophyandliterature,whichdeepenedhisinterestininter-culturalexchange.Hesubsequentlylecturedinmanyotherpartsoftheworld,includingAsiaandIsrael.HewasmarriedtoLoreIser.

Hermeneutics[edit]

Iserisknownforhis reader-response criticism in literarytheory.Thistheorybegantoevolvein1967,whilehewasworkinginthe UniversityofKonstanz,whichhehelpedtofoundinthe1960s.Togetherwith HansRobertJauss,heisconsideredtobethefounderofthe ConstanceSchool of receptionaesthetics.Inhisapproachtoreader-responsetheory,Iserdescribestheprocessoffirstreading,thesubsequentdevelopmentofthetextintoa'whole',andhowthedialoguebetweenthereaderandtext

takesplace.InhisstudyofShakespeare'shistories,inparticular RichardII,IserinterpretsRichard'scontinuallychanginglegalpolicyasexpressionofthedesireforself-assertion.Herehefollows HansBlumenberg,andattemptstoapplyhistheoryofmodernitytoShakespeare.Inthistheoryofmodernityisself-assertion,whichrespondstothedestructionofscholasticrationalism inthenominalistrevolution(with William ofOckham).

ForIser,meaningisnotanobjecttobefoundwithinatext,butisaneventofconstructionthatoccurssomewherebetweenthetextandthereader.[1] Specifically,areadercomestothetext,whichisafixedworld,butmeaningisrealizedthroughtheactofreadingandhowareaderconnectsthestructuresofthetexttohis/herownexperience.Toillustratethis,Iserusestheexampleofconstellations:“Theimpressionsthatariseasaresultofthisprocesswillvaryfrom individualtoindividual,butonlywithinthelimitsimposedbythewrittenasopposedtotheunwrittentext.Inthesameway,twopeoplegazingatthenightskymaybothbelookingatthesamecollectionofstars,butonewillseetheimageofaplough,andtheotherwillmakeoutadipper.The‘stars’inaliterarytextarefixed;thelinesthatjointhem arevariable.”[2] Aliterarywork,whichforIseriscreatedwhenareaderandatext“converge,[3] consistsoftwo“poles”:theartistic(theobject,thetextcreatedbytheauthor)andtheaesthetic(therealizationaccomplishedbythereader).[4] BothofthesepolescontributetothetwocentralpointsofIser’stheory:theconceptof“impliedreader”andnarrative“gaps.”

Whenanauthoriscomposingatext,s/hehasaparticularreaderinmind,whichisinpartrepresentedinthetext.Thisreaderisnotidenticaltoareal,flesh-and-bloodreader,butis“atextualstructureanticipatingthepresenceofarecipientwithoutnecessarilydefininghim…theconceptoftheimpliedreaderdesignatesanetworkofresponse-invitingstructures,whichimpelthereadertograspthetext.”[5] Iserseparatestheconceptofimpliedreaderintotwo“interrelatedaspects:thereader’sroleasatextualstructure,andthereader’sroleasastructuredact.”[6]

Thetextualstructurereferstothereader’spoint-of-viewasfoundwithinthetext.Thisstandpointismultifaceted,becausethenarrator,thecharacters,theplot,andthefictitiousreaderalloffersidesofit.[7] Further,thereader’sroleasatextualstructureisdefinedbythe“vantagepointbywhichhejoins[theseperspectives],andthemeetingplacetheyconverge.”[8] All,ascomponentparts,operatetogethertoshapethereader’sroleasfoundwithinthetext.

Thereader’sroleasastructuredactreferstohowareaderfulfillsthetextualstructuresbycausingthem toconvergewithinhis/herimagination.[9] Inotherwords,thetextualstructuresareconnectedandcometolifewhenareadertakespartinthereadingprocess.Thisdoesnotmeanthatthe“real”readersimplyacceptsthisrole,butratherhe/sheexistsintensionbetweenhis/herownhistoricalrealityandexperience,andtheacceptanceofhis/herroleasreader.“Theconceptoftheimpliedreaderasanexpressionoftheroleofferedbythetextisinnowayanabstractionderivedfrom arealreader,butisrathertheconditioningforcebehindaparticularkindoftensionproducedbytherealreaderwhenheacceptstherole.”[10] Thedifferencesbetweentherealreader,andtheroleofthefictitiousreader,produceatensionthatallowsfordifferentconnectionsandreadings.

ForIser,aliteraryworkiscomposedofbothwrittenandunwrittenportionsofatext.Asareaderbeginsthereadingprocess,thesentencesthatmakeupaworknotonlyinform thereaderoftheliterarymovement,butproducecertainexpectationswithinthemindofthereader.[11] However,theseexpectationsarerarelyfulfilled,asatextis“fullofunexpectedtwistsandturns,andfrustrationsofexpectations…Thuswhenevertheflowisinterruptedandweareledoffinunexpecteddirections,theopportunityisgiventoustobringintoplayourownfacultyforestablishingconnections—forfillinginthegapsleftbythetextitself.”[12] Thesegapsaretheunwrittenportionofthetextthatcallsforthereader’sparticipation.Differentreaderswilldecidetofillinthevariousgapsindifferentways,allowingforinexhaustiblerealizationsofthetextwithinitsprovidedinterpretivelimits.[13] Asthereaderreflectsonwhats/hehasreadpreviouslyinthetext,orifs/herereadsthetext,newlightisshedonthehappeningswithinthenarrativeas“certainaspectsofthetextwillassumeasignificancewedidnotattachtothem onafirstreading,whileotherswillrecedeintothebackground.”[14]

Thus,thestructureofatextbringsaboutexpectations,whichareinterruptedbysurprisingunfulfillment,producinggaps,whichrequirefillingbythereadertocreateacoherentflowofthetext.Thesegapsthen,inturn,causethereadertorereadprioreventsinthetextinlightofthosegapfillings.However,thesegapscannotbefilledarbitrarily,butthroughinterpretivelimitsgiveninthetextbyanauthor.Iserfindsthisexperiencetobethebreakdownofthesubject-objectdivision,inthat“textandreadernolongerconfronteachotherasobjectandsubject,butinsteadthe‘division’takesplacewithinthereaderhimself.”[15] Intheactofreading,atextbecomesalivingsubjectwithinthereader.

Bibliography[edit]

DieWeltanschauungHenryFieldings(1952)

WalterPater.DieAutonomiedesÄsthetischen(1960)

DerimpliziteLeser.KommunikationsformendesRomansvonBunyanbisBeckett(1972)

DerAktdesLesens.TheorieästhetischerWirkung(1976)

LaurenceSternes"Tristram Shandy".InszenierteSubjektivität(1987)

ShakespearesHistorien.GenesisundGeltung(1988)

Prospecting:From ReaderResponsetoLiteraryAnthropology(1989)

DasFiktiveunddasImaginäre.PerspektivenliterarischerAnthropologie(1991)

StagingPolitics:TheLastingImpactofShakespeare'sHistories

TheRangeofInterpretation(2000)

HowtoDoTheory(2006)


BenDeBruyn: WolfgangIser:ACompanion,Berlin/Boston:DeGruyter,2012.

Reader-responsecriticismFrom Wikipedia,thefreeencyclopedia

Thisarticleincludesa listofreferences,but itssourcesremain

unclear becauseithas insufficient inlinecitations. Pleasehelp

to improve thisarticleby introducing moreprecisecitations. (April2008)

Reader-responsecriticism isaschoolof literarytheory thatfocuseson thereader (or"audience")

andhisorherexperienceofa literarywork,incontrasttootherschoolsandtheoriesthatfocus

attentionprimarilyontheauthororthecontentand form ofthework.

Althoughliterarytheoryhaslongpaidsomeattentiontothereader'sroleincreatingthemeaning

andexperienceofaliterarywork,modernreader-responsecriticism beganinthe1960sand'70s,

particularlyintheUSandGermany,inworkby NormanHolland, StanleyFish, WolfgangIser, Hans-

RobertJauss, RolandBarthes,andothers.Importantpredecessorswere I.A.Richards,whoin1929

analyzedagroupof Cambridge undergraduates'misreadings; LouiseRosenblatt,who,in Literature

asExploration (1938),arguedthatitisimportantfortheteachertoavoidimposingany

"preconceivednotionsabouttheproperwaytoreacttoanywork";and C.S.Lewis in AnExperiment

inCriticism (1961).

Reader-responsetheoryrecognizesthereaderasanactiveagentwhoimparts"realexistence"tothe

workandcompletesitsmeaningthroughinterpretation.Reader-responsecriticism arguesthat

literatureshouldbeviewedasaperformingartinwhicheachreadercreatestheirown,possibly

unique,text-relatedperformance.Itstandsintotaloppositiontothetheoriesof formalism and

the NewCriticism,inwhichthereader'sroleinre-creatingliteraryworksisignored.NewCriticism

hademphasizedthatonlythatwhichiswithinatextispartofthemeaningofatext.Noappealto

theauthorityor intentionoftheauthor,nortothe psychology ofthereader,wasallowedinthe

discussionsoforthodoxNewCritics.

Contents

[hide]

1Types

o 1.1Individualists

o 1.2Experimenters

o 1.3Uniformists

2Objections

3Extensions

4Notesandreferences

5Furtherreading

6Externallinks

Types[edit]

Thissection's useof externallinks maynotfollowWikipedia'spoliciesor

guidelines. Please improvethisarticle by

removing excessive or inappropriate externallinks,andconvertinguseful

linkswhereappropriateinto footnotereferences.(August2015)

Therearemultipleapproacheswithinthetheoreticalbranchofreader-responsecriticism,yetallare

unifiedintheirbeliefthatthemeaningofatextisderivedfrom thereaderthroughthereading

process.[1] LoisTysonendeavorstodefinethevariationsintofiverecognizedreader-response

criticism approacheswhilstwarningthatcategorizingreader-responsetheoristsexplicitlyinvites

difficultlyduetotheiroverlappingbeliefsandpractices.[2] Transactionalreader-responsetheory,led

byLouiseRosenblattandsupportedbyWolfgangIser,involvesatransactionbetweenthetext's

inferredmeaningandtheindividualinterpretationbythereaderinfluencedbytheirpersonal

emotionsandknowledge.[2] Affectivestylistics,establishedbyStanleyFish,believethatatextcan

onlycomeintoexistenceasitisread;therefore,atextcannothavemeaningindependentofthe

reader.[2] Subjectivereader-responsetheory,associatedwithDavidBleich,looksentirelytothe

reader'sresponseforliterarymeaningasindividualwrittenresponsestoatextarethencomparedto

otherindividualinterpretationstofindcontinuityofmeaning.[2] Psychologicalreader-response

theory,employedbyNormanHolland,believesthatareader’smotivesheavilyaffecthowtheyread,

andsubsequentlyusethisreadingtoanalyzethepsychologicalresponseofthereader.[2] Social

reader-responsetheory isStanleyFish'sextensionofhisearlierwork,statingthatanyindividual

interpretationofatextiscreatedinaninterpretivecommunityofmindsconsistingofparticipants

whoshareaspecificreadingandinterpretationstrategy.[2] Inallinterpretivecommunities,readers

arepredisposedtoaparticularform ofinterpretationasaconsequenceofstrategiesusedatthe

timeofreading.[2]

Analternativewayoforganizingreader-responsetheoristsistoseparatethem intothreegroups:

thosewhofocusupontheindividualreader'sexperience("individualists");thosewho

conduct psychological experimentsonadefinedsetofreaders("experimenters");andthosewho

assumeafairlyuniform responsebyallreaders("uniformists").Onecanthereforedrawadistinction

betweenreader-responsetheoristswhoseetheindividualreaderdrivingthewholeexperienceand

otherswhothinkofliteraryexperienceaslargelytext-drivenanduniform (withindividualvariations

thatcanbeignored).Theformertheorists,whothinkthereadercontrols,derivewhatiscommonina

literaryexperiencefrom sharedtechniquesforreadingandinterpretingwhichare,however,

individuallyappliedbydifferentreaders.Thelatter,whoputthetextincontrol,derivecommonalities

ofresponse,obviously,from theliteraryworkitself.Themostfundamentaldifferenceamongreader-

responsecriticsisprobably,then,betweenthosewhoregardindividualdifferencesamongreaders'

responsesasimportantandthosewhotrytogetaroundthem.

Individualists[edit]

Inthe1960s,DavidBleich’spedagogicallyinspiredliterarytheoryentailedthatthetextisthereader’s

interpretationofitasitexistsintheirmind,andthatanobjectivereadingisnotpossibleduetothe

symbolizationandresymbolizationprocess.[2] Thesymbolizationandresymbolizationprocess

consistsofhowanindividual’spersonalemotions,needsandlifeexperiencesaffecthowareader

engageswithatext;marginallyalteringthemeaning.[2] Bleichsupportedhistheorybyconductinga

studywithhisstudentsinwhichtheyrecordedtheirindividualmeaningofatextastheyexperienced

it,thenresponsetotheirowninitialwrittenresponse,beforecomparingitwithotherstudent’s

responsestocollectivelyestablishliterarysignificanceaccordingtotheclasses"generated"

knowledgeofhowparticularpersonsrecreatetexts.[2] Heusedthisknowledgetotheorizeaboutthe

readingprocessandtorefocustheclassroom teachingofliterature.

MichaelSteig and WalterSlatoff have,likeBleich,shownthatstudents'highlypersonalresponses

canprovidethebasisforcriticalanalysesintheclassroom. JeffreyBerman hasencouraged

studentsrespondingtotextstowriteanonymouslyandsharewiththeirclassmateswritingsin

responsetoliteraryworksaboutsensitivesubjectslikedrugs,suicidalthoughts,deathinthefamily,

parentalabuseandthelike.Akindof catharsis borderingontherapyresults.Ingeneral,American

reader-responsecriticshavefocusedonindividualreaders'responses.

American magazines like ReadingResearchQuarterly andotherspublisharticlesapplyingreader-

responsetheorytotheteachingofliterature.

In1961,C.S.Lewispublished AnExperimentinCriticism,inwhichheanalyzedreaders'rolein

selectingliterature.Heanalyzedtheirselectionsinlightoftheirgoalsinreading.

In1967, StanleyFish published SurprisedbySin,thefirststudyofalargeliterarywork(ParadiseLost)

thatfocusedonitsreaders'experience.Inanappendix,"LiteratureintheReader",Fishused"the"

readertoexamineresponsestocomplexsentencessequentially,word-by-word.Since1976,

however,hehasturnedtorealdifferencesamongrealreaders.Heexploresthereadingtactics

endorsedbydifferentcriticalschools,bytheliteraryprofessoriate,andbythe legalprofession,

introducingtheideaof"interpretivecommunities"thatshareparticularmodesofreading.

In1968, NormanHolland drewon psychoanalytic psychologyin TheDynamicsofLiterary

Response tomodeltheliterarywork.Eachreaderintrojectsafantasy"in"thetext,thenmodifiesit

by defensemechanisms intoaninterpretation.In1973,however,havingrecordedresponsesfrom

realreaders,Hollandfoundvariationstoogreattofitthismodelinwhichresponsesaremostlyalike

butshowminorindividualvariations.

Hollandthendevelopedasecondmodelbasedonhiscasestudies 5ReadersReading.Anindividual

has(inthebrain)acoreidentitytheme(behaviorsthenbecomingunderstandableasathemeand

variationsasinmusic).Thiscoregivesthatindividualacertainstyleofbeing—andreading.Each

readerusesthephysicalliteraryworkplusinvariablecodes(suchastheshapesofletters)plus

variable canons (different"interpretivecommunities",forexample)plusanindividualstyleofreading

tobuildaresponsebothlikeandunlikeotherreaders'responses.Hollandworkedwithothersat

the StateUniversityofNewYorkatBuffalo,MurraySchwartz, DavidWillbern,and RobertRogers,to

developaparticularteachingformat,the"Delphiseminar,"designedtogetstudentsto"know

themselves".

Experimenters[edit]

ReuvenTsur in Israel hasdevelopedingreatdetailmodelsfortheexpressivityof poeticrhythms,

of metaphor,andofword-soundin poetry (includingdifferentactors'readingsofasingleline

of Shakespeare). RichardGerrig intheU.S.hasexperimentedwiththereader'sstateofmindduring

andafteraliteraryexperience.Hehasshownhowreadersputasideordinaryknowledgeandvalues

whiletheyread,treating,forexample,criminalsasheroes.Hehasalsoinvestigatedhowreaders

accept,whilereading,improbableorfantasticthings(Coleridge's"willing suspensionofdisbelief"),

butdiscardthem aftertheyhavefinished.

InCanada, DavidMiall,usuallyworkingwith DonaldKuiken,hasproducedalargebodyofwork

exploring emotional or"affective"responsestoliterature,drawingonsuchconceptsfrom ordinary

criticism as"defamiliarization"or"foregrounding".Theyhaveusedbothexperimentsandnew

developmentsin neuropsychology,andhavedevelopedaquestionnaire formeasuringdifferent

aspectsofareader'sresponse.

Therearemanyotherexperimentalpsychologistsaroundtheworldexploringreaders'responses,

conductingmanydetailedexperiments.Onecanresearchtheirworkthroughtheirprofessional

organizations,the InternationalSocietyfortheEmpiricalStudyofLiteratureandMedia,

and InternationalAssociationofEmpiricalAesthetics,andthroughsuchpsychologicalindicesas

PSYCINFO.

TwonotableresearchersareDolfZillmannandPeterVorderer,bothworkinginthefield

of communications and mediapsychology.Bothhavetheorizedandtestedideasaboutwhat

producesemotionssuchas suspense, curiosity, surprise inreaders,thenecessaryfactorsinvolved,

andtherolethereaderplays.JeneferRobinson,aresearcherinemotion,hasrecentlyblendedher

studiesonemotionwithitsroleinliterature,music,andart.

Uniformists[edit]

WolfgangIser exemplifiestheGermantendencytotheorizethereaderandsopositauniform

response.Forhim,aliteraryworkisnotanobjectinitselfbutaneffecttobeexplained.Buthe

assertsthisresponseiscontrolledbythetext.Forthe"real"reader,hesubstitutesanimpliedreader,

whoisthereaderagivenliteraryworkrequires.Withinvariouspolaritiescreatedbythetext,this

"implied"readermakesexpectations,meanings,andtheunstateddetailsofcharactersandsettings

througha"wanderingviewpoint".Inhismodel,thetextcontrols.Thereader'sactivitiesareconfined

withinlimitssetbytheliterarywork.

AnotherimportantGermanreader-responsecriticwas Hans-RobertJauss,whodefinedliteratureas

a dialectic processofproductionandreception(Rezeption—theterm commoninGermanyfor

"response").ForJauss,readershaveacertainmentalset,a"horizon"ofexpectations

(Erwartungshorizont),from whichperspectiveeachreader,atanygiventimeinhistory,reads.

Reader-responsecriticism establishesthesehorizonsofexpectationbyreadingliteraryworksofthe

periodinquestion.

BothIserandJauss,andthe ConstanceSchool theyexemplify,returnreader-responsecriticism toa

studyofthetextbydefiningreadersintermsofthetext.Inthesameway,GeraldPrince positsa

"narratee", MichaelRiffaterre positsa"superreader",and StanleyFish an"informedreader."And

manytext-orientedcriticssimplyspeakof"the"readerwhotypifiesallreaders....

Objections[edit]

Reader-responsecriticsholdthatinordertounderstandatext,onemustlooktotheprocesses

readersusetocreatemeaningandexperience.Traditionaltext-orientedschools,suchas formalism,

oftenthinkofreader-responsecriticism asan anarchic subjectivism,allowingreaderstointerpreta

textanywaytheywant.Text-orientedcriticsclaim thatonecanunderstandatextwhileremaining

immunetoone'sownculture,status, personality,andsoon,andhence"objectively."

Toreader-responsebasedtheorists,however,readingisalwaysboth subjective and objective.Some

reader-responsecritics(uniformists)assumeabi-activemodelofreading:theliteraryworkcontrols

partoftheresponseandthereadercontrolspart.Others,whoseethatpositionasinternally

contradictory,claim thatthereadercontrolsthewholetransaction(individualists).Insuchareader-

activemodel,readersandaudiencesuseamateurorprofessionalproceduresforreading(sharedby

manyothers)aswellastheirpersonalissuesandvalues.

Anotherobjectiontoreader-responsecriticism isthatitfailstoaccountforthetextbeingableto

expandthereader'sunderstanding.Whilereaderscananddoputtheirownideasandexperiences

intoawork,theyareatthesametimegainingnewunderstandingthroughthetext.Thisissomething

thatisgenerallyoverlookedinreader-responsecriticism.

Some[who?] arguethat'artworks'arenowpurposelybeingfabricatedwhichlackmeaningbutratherthe

'artworks'arefabricatedonlytogenerateareaderresponse.Thereaderresponsetheniscorralled

viainterpretativecommunities.Readerresponseratherthanhandingafreedom tothereader

empowerstheleadersofaninterpretativecommunityagainstthereader.Thereaderhasnoground

toevaluatethe'artwork'astheartworkissenseless.Onlyareaderresponse,basicallyanemotive

response,islegitimate.TheWebprovidesanidealwaytoform suchinterpretativecommunities.The

powerofreaderresponsestrategyisthatpeoplearefundamentally'hungry'forcultureandwill

attempttoimpartmeaningeventoartworksthataresenseless.Ofcourse,peoplecanalwaysopt

outoftheseinterpretativecommunitiescenteredonsenselessartworkswithlittletonolossvis-à-

vis cultureandalmostcertainlyaculturalgain.

Extensions[edit]

Reader-responsecriticism relatestopsychology,both experimentalpsychology forthoseattempting

tofindprinciplesofresponse,and psychoanalyticpsychology forthosestudyingindividual

responses.Post-behaviorist psychologistsofreadingandof perception supporttheideathatitisthe

readerwhomakesmeaning.Increasingly, cognitivepsychology, psycholinguistics,neuroscience,

and neuropsychoanalysis havegivenreader-responsecriticspowerfulanddetailedmodelsforthe

aestheticprocess.In2011researchersfoundthatduringlisteningtoemotionallyintensepartsofa

story,readersrespondwithchangesin heartratevariability,indicativeofincreasedactivationof

thesympatheticnervoussystem.Intensepartsofastorywerealsoaccompaniedbyincreasedbrain

activityinanetworkofregionsknowntobeinvolvedintheprocessingoffear,including amygdala.[3]

Becauseitrestsonpsychologicalprinciples,areader-responseapproachreadilygeneralizestoother

arts: cinema (DavidBordwell),music,orvisualart(E.H.Gombrich),andeventohistory(Hayden

White).Instressingtheactivityofthescholar,reader-responsetheoryjustifiessuchupsettingsof

traditionalinterpretationsas,forexample,deconstruction or culturalcriticism.

Sincereader-responsecriticsfocusonthestrategiesreadersaretaughttouse,theyaddress

the teaching ofreadingandliterature.Also,becausereader-responsecriticism stressestheactivity

ofthereader,reader-responsecriticsreadilysharetheconcernsof feminist critics,andcriticsof

GenderandQueerTheoryandPost-Colonialism.

Notesandreferences[edit]

1. Jumpup̂ Cahill,M (1996)‘Reader-responsecriticism andtheallegorizingreader’, TheologicalStudies,vol.57,no.1,pp.89–97.

2. ̂Jumpupto:a b c d e f g h i j Tyson,L(2006) Criticaltheorytoday:auser-friendlyguide,2ndedn,Routledge,NewYorkandLondon.

3. Jumpup̂ WallentinM,,NielsenAH,VuustP,DohnA,RoepstorffA,LundTE(2011)."Amygdalaandheartratevariabilityresponsesfrom listeningtoemotionallyintensepartsofastory".NeuroImage 58 (3):963–73. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.06.077.


Reader-ResponseCriticism

Inthe reader-response criticalapproach,theprimaryfocusfallsonthereaderandtheprocessofreadingratherthanontheauthororthetext.

TheoreticalAssumptions:

Literatureisaperformativeartandeachreadingisaperformance,analogoustoplaying/singingamusicalwork,enactingadrama,etc.Literatureexistsonlywhenitisread;meaningisanevent(versustheNewCriticalconceptofthe"affectivefallacy").

Theliterarytextpossessesnofixedandfinalmeaningorvalue;thereisnoone"correct"meaning.Literarymeaningandvalueare"transactional,""dialogic,"createdbytheinteractionofthereaderandthetext.AccordingtoLouiseRosenblatt,apoem is"whatthereaderlivesthroughundertheguidanceofthetext."

VaryingEmphases:

Howreadersinterprettexts: Sometimescalled"subjective."Maydealwithpublished"readings"oftextsand/orstudynonprofessionalreadings(e.g.,students).Thesecriticsexplainsimilaritiesinreadingsinvaryingways:

"styles"or"identitythemes"ofreadersaresimilar(NormanHolland--psychoanalyticapproach):cf.GeorgeDillon'sclassificationofstudents'responsestoFaulkner's"ARoseforEmily":

o "Character-Action-MoralStyle"("connectedknowers")--treatliteratureascoextensivewithexperience

o "DiggersforSecrets"--findhiddenmeaningsinliterature,psychoanalyzemotivesofcharacters,etc.

o "Anthropologists"--lookforculturalpatterns,norms,values[e.g.feminists,NewHistoricists].

readersbelongtosame"interpretivecommunities"(StanleyFish)withsharedreadingstrategies,valuesandinterpretiveassumptions(i.e.,shared"discourse");conceptofthe"informedreader."

readersaresituatedinacommoncultural/historicalsettingandshapedbydominantdiscoursesandideologies(NewHistoricistemphasis).

"Receptiontheory/aesthetics"studiesthechangingresponsesofthegeneralreadingpublicovertime.

Howtextsgovernreader: Focusonhowtextsguide,constrain,controlreading;oftenuselinguistic,stylistic,narratologicalmethodsofanalysis.WolfgangIserarguesthatthetextinpartcontrolsthereader'sresponsesbutcontains"gaps"thatthereadercreativelyfills.Thereisatensionbetween

"the impliedreader,"whoisestablishedbythe"response-invitingstructures"ofthetext;thistypeofreaderisassumedandcreatedbytheworkitself

"theactualreader,"whobringshis/herownexperiencesandpreoccupationstothetext

B com 4th sem - gfgc.kar.nic.in · Reader-ResponseCriticism...

Documents

Transcript of B com 4th sem - gfgc.kar.nic.in · Reader-ResponseCriticism...