In this essay I discuss three approaches to reader-response criticism and present a method of interacting with a text.
There are two extremes of reader-response criticism. At one end of the spectrum is the personal, subjective approach--Steven Lynn's "'associative'" approach.1 From this perspective, what a work means and how well it succeeds depends on the reader. The problem with this approach is that it leads to relativism because there is no one correct, or logical, interpretation. Everybody's interpretation of a text is correct, according to subjectivists. Clearly, however, there may be misinterpretations of a text.
There are two extremes of reader-response criticism. At one end of the spectrum is the personal, subjective approach--Steven Lynn's "'associative'" approach.1 From this perspective, what a work means and how well it succeeds depends on the reader. The problem with this approach is that it leads to relativism because there is no one correct, or logical, interpretation. Everybody's interpretation of a text is correct, according to subjectivists. Clearly, however, there may be misinterpretations of a text.
At the other end of the spectrum is the purely objective approach, which Steven Lynn defines as "the 'receptive' version of reader-response criticism."2 From this perspective, there is an ideal response the author encoded in the text that an attentive and informed reader recovers. The reader's response is not personal, subjective and unique; rather, the reader assumes the role of the implied reader (audience) the author envisioned as he/she wrote the text. The problem with this approach is that it does not allow for multiple correct interpretations of a text.
When the culture in which the author wrote differs significantly from the reader's, it seems clear that a logical interpretation requires immersion in the author's world--that is in his/her text. How can we know what response Shakespeare intended if we do not understand fully Shakespeare's culture? Between the purely subjective and purely objective extremes is an approach that balances both subjectivity (emotions) and objectivity (reason): Steven Lynn's "'interactive' version."3 We respond as ourselves, but we also try to imagine how the author intended his/her readers to respond. Thus, when reading and writing, we learn things about ourselves, and we learn about other times, places and people.
Reader-response critics of all theoretical persuasions agree to some degree that the meanings of a text are the production or creation of the individual reader. Thus, there is no one correct meaning for all readers either of the linguistic parts or of the artistic whole. Where these critics importantly differ is (a) in their views of the primary factors that shape a reader's responses, (b) in the places at which they draw the line between what is objectively given in a text and the subjective responses of an individual reader, and as a result of those differences, (c) in their conclusions about the extent, if any, to which a text controls or constrains a reader's responses, so as to authorize us to reject some interpretations and misreadings, even if, as almost all reader-response critics assert, we are unable to demonstrate that any one interpretation is correct.
The contemporary German critic Wolfgang Iser believes that a literary text--as a product of the writer's intentional acts--in part controls the reader's responses but always contains a number of gaps or indeterminate elements--for example, figurative language. The reader must fill in these gaps by way of creative participation with what is actually in the text. The experience of reading is an evolving process of anticipation, frustration, retrospection, reconstruction and satisfaction. Iser distinguishes between the implied reader, who is established by the text itself as one who is expected to respond in specific ways to the text, and the actual reader, whose responses are inevitably colored by his/her accumulated private experiences. As a consequence literary texts permit a range of possible interpretations. The fact, however, that the author's intentional acts establish limits to the reader's creative additions to a text allows us to reject some interpretations as misreadings. Thus, Iser's philosophy supports the interactive approach.
To prevent any misreading of a text, you have to actively make meaning of the text. In other words, the process of reading is what gives the text meaning. The process includes (1) closely reading the text, (2) considering your responses as you read each part and after you have finished the whole, and (3) asking and answering the following questions. What are my responses? What literary techniques trigger these responses? How do my experiences and expectations affect my reading? Do my responses change after I have read the text again? Regardless of your responses, you must balance your subjectivity with objectivity--that is, your interpretation must be valid.
A valid interpretation must make a claim--an assertion of truth open to question. A valid interpretation must have grounds--reasons for and evidences of the claim. A valid interpretation must have backing--justifications for the claim (specific references to the text and explications of those references). To generate the aforementioned--that is, a claim, grounds and backing--you need to engage in the process of criticism. First, freely write about the poem, focusing on the poem as a whole and on particular lines. Second, closely read the poem, answering the questions in "Poetry Worksheet." Third, organize your information. Fourth, create a working thesis and write a draft.
_______________________________________________________
1Steven Lynn
, Literature: Reading and Writing with Critical Strategies (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004) 45.
, Literature: Reading and Writing with Critical Strategies (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004) 45.
2Ibidem, 45-46.
3Ibidem, 46.
