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.
3. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheReadingProcess:aPhenomenologicalApproach,” NewLiteraryHistory, Vol.3,No.2,OnInterpretation:I(Winter,1972),279.
4. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheReadingProcess:aPhenomenologicalApproach,” NewLiteraryHistory, Vol.3,No.2,OnInterpretation:I(Winter,1972),279.
5. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheRudimentsofaTheoryofAestheticResponse,” TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978,34.
6. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheRudimentsofaTheoryofAestheticResponse,” TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978,35.
7. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheRudimentsofaTheoryofAestheticResponse,” TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978,35.
8. Jumpup̂ Iser,Wolfgang.“TheRudimentsofaTheoryofAestheticResponse,” TheActofReading:ATheoryofAestheticResponse.Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1978,36.
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)
Furtherreading[edit]
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.
Furtherreading[edit]
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