Reader-Response Theory

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?

Analyzing Characters

Today in class we talked about how there are different things psychoanalytic critics can attempt to analyze, one of these being the characters. There was some discussion about whether or not characters can be analyzed, and whether or not when we do analyze them, we're really analyzing the author.
i have mixed feelings about this. i do definitely think characters can and should be analyzed; that not everything has to come back to the author. but at the same time, i don't know that authors always intend for their characters to be analyzed in the ways we do, especially authors who don't subscribe to psychoanalysis. To me though, this doesn't necessarily mean that analysis of characters is "wrong." If a critic believes that their school of thought actually can be used to understand and interpret the actions of people in the real world, then i feel that they can interpret characters' actions in the same way, without having to consider the author.
any thoughts?

-Amy

Terms and Theory

Something that continues to come up in class is people either asking or arguing “Well, then what is the true meaning of _______?” We have had this discussion about the terms theory, theme, structure, symbolism, etc. It seems to be an emerging pattern—particularly in the two class periods we spent on Brook’s Irony as a Principal of Structure. Sure, we seemed to come to a general conclusion about what Brooks determined to be the meanings of the terms “irony” and “structure” and their interdependence in a literary aspect. But, just because we believe that we have found what Brooks thinks these terms mean, do we really believe this to be the true meanings of the terms universally? Well, of course not.

So what I wonder is, what are we seeking when we theorize the meanings of these basic literary terms that are the foundation on which most literary theory is based? Do we seek a true meaning (if anyone believes that one can actually be found) or a common understanding of the terms in general or for each theorist we happen to analyze?