I have two questions that pertain to the Richter reading about Reader-Response Theory. In the section entitled "The Psychology and Sociology of the Audience," Richter explains the position of Louise Rosenblatt by saying, in the most basic of terms, that each reader brings something different to the text. Rosenblatt touches on something we talked about in class the other day: each reading of a text will be different because we are slightly different every time we read a text. This is a good point, just as his advice not to project anything onto the text. What I wonder, though, is if it is possible to have an "undistorted" view of a text? Is it possible to recognize our biases and curb them to get a totally unbias reading?
Secondly, I just want to hear the opinions of others on David Bleich's theory. He claims that our social setting plays a part in our interpretation, or our vocalized interpretation, of a text. Bleich says that readers will keep quiet those things that are irrelevant to others and the aim of the class. I do not know if this is necessarily true because I think most people would agree that they have used the "But that is what I get from the text" excuse at one point in time, especially in the case that others do not agree. What are your thoughts?
7 comments:
In response to Jackie's first question, I don't think it is possible to have a completely "undistorted" view of a text if it is being approached multiple times. Thinking about the theory or reader-response criticism, Murfin notes that reader-response critics focus on "what texts do to, or in, the mind of the reader..." (p.126). A reader is thus essentially challenged to make sense of a literary work.
When we are presented with a challenging literary work (Joyce's "Ulysses," for example), part of the triumph is not only finishing it, but making sense of everything that is going on. Murfin cites author Stanley Fish's notion that in texts that are "dialectical," readers are challenged to discover truths of their own. The "truths" and meanings in "Ulysses" are innumerable, and many are extremely taxing to uncover. If one was to brave "Ulysses" for a second time, would he/she disregard the view that was so diligently attained upon the original reading? I doubt it, as I think trying to eliminate bias would be a futile effort.
I can't help but think that even with a literary work that we don't consider challenging (a Dr. Seuss book, for example), we are bound to develop a bias that will re-emerge upon a second reading.
-Marcus Mitchell
Well...but doesn't phrasing like "making sense of everything that is going on" and "meanings...are taxing to uncover" suggest that meaning is a property of the text rather than the reader? If the reader is just making meaning on his or her own, why would one text be more taxing than another?
Wes
I disagree that once you read something, you will always be bound to have the same interpretation. I recently went back and re-read Little Women. I read it when I was younger and pretty much just got the plot out of it, but this second time through, I picked up the messages and morals that are in the text and what I wanted to hear. The first time, it was a touching and heart warming story, but the second time it was a didactic story that was obviously intended to teach people how they should behave.
Though I didn't disregard my original interpretation entirely, reading the book a second time was an entirely different experience because I was a different reader.
In responce to Wes, perhaps texts on their own are not any more or less taxing when one is just reading them. The reader will automatically pick out the parts that speak to him, but when one is reading for a class, you are expected to look for meanings that you as a reader would not see without a push. This stretching to find meanings is what makes a text taxing. So there are meanings inherent in texts, but people reading the texts are the ones who bring them out and modify them to be relevent.
In regards to your second comment (David Bleich's theory), I think that social setting often does play a role in our interpretation, or our vocalized interpretation, of a text. Why? Because all of our surroundings affect our perceptions of our environment, including literature. If we were among memebers of another society, of course, we would most likely look at a piece of literature differently from how we would currently view it. Our knowledge is limited by our society and by what we know because of our environment since we are not exposed to different societies and ways of life, who may view things differently.
Jackie asked "[is it] possible to have an "undistorted" view of a text?," and I agree with Marcus' assertion that it is not. We all have preconceived opinions about things, and we are all products of a socializing system of culture that teaches us to make identifications, contrasts, and judgments about things.
As Sylvi's "Little Women" example shows, though, we are not necessarily loyal to or biased towards those judgments or associations we have made "ourselves." Her developing sense of the "meaning" of the text shows, rather, that we have a high affinity to the culture within which we are a part (perhaps best to clarify, at the time of reading). Because her life changed--including her social circle, education, knowledge of the world, morals, etc.--her interpretation of the text changed.
Both of the interpretations of Little Women were colored by social lenses--to use a cliche metaphor. Both of the interpretations were "distorted" in a sense by circumstance, but both yielded readings that were, to the reader, useful.
Why, in response to Jackie's second question, would we *want* a totally unbiased reading? What could we possibly gain from a reading that didn't permit us to apply our own cultural knowledge/context?
I agree with Marcus that it isn't possible to have an "undistorted" view of a text. I partly agree with Bleich's theory that social setting plays a part in our interpretation; successful critics are conscious of the beliefs held by their audience and adapt their interpretations accordingly. However, People will choose to vocalize the details they hold most important, regardless of their reletivity to others, although admittedly, interpretations that are entirely personal are often disregarded by literary communities.
I definitely agree with Sylvi that interpretations of a text can change for the same reader when read at another time. I see no reason why insight gained on the first reading should be cast aside- it can provide a base for further inquiry and new ideas about the text, even if only in ruling out former reasoning.
Overall, the reader actively finds the meaning but the text must provide the opportunity, which leads to more complex texts which have meanings that are "taxing to uncover."
Post a Comment