I'd Be Willing To Bet That There Is No Real Answer.
From Contexts for Criticism by Keesey:
"But they agree on one main point: since the "poem" exists only when the reader (however defined) encounters the text, literary criticism must focus on that encounter" (138).
So, from this chapter I learned that reader-response critics believe that a poem only exists when it is read. It is kind of like the whole "If a tree falls in the forest thing." If you don't hear it, then it may not even fall at all. I think that this outlook is a little egocentric, but that's me. However, I am the reader...and that's my response. lol
Anyway, I get the idea, although I may be wrong, that reader-response is like literature in general. It can kind of move and be what you want it to be. Some reader-response critics believe that the reader needs to be the "implied reader" and not the "actual reader." What I get from that is that we need to look beyond our own lives and try to see what others, in our time, would see if they read the poem. But what I have a difficult time understanding is how do we know that we separated ourselves enough from our interpretations? I mean, we're all bias right? As much as I try to get away from me, I just can't get rid of me. It's annoying. Just kidding. So it seems that yet again, the answer is that there is no answer. But I'm beginning to see that this is alright. As long as I kind of know what I'm doing and I make a good argument, I can never be (completely) wrong. Oh what difference one little word can make.
- What do you think reader-response is?
- What is it not? (What distinguishes it from other types of criticisms?
Oh and if you're curious to know the key to reader-response, click here. It is one of my other blogs from this week in which I get more specific about reader-response. It may help your understanding.
2 Comments
Leave a comment
Recent Comments
Greta Carroll on I'd Be Willing To Bet That There Is No Real Answer.: Angela, I liked your point abo
Angela, I liked your point about a poem being like that whole “if a tree falls in the forest” type thing. Honestly, I agree with you on that one. I think that the poem exists without the reader, granted I also think that the reader is partially what gives the poem its power as well. As to your questions, I think reader-response is a type of literary criticism that centers the reading of a text on a reader (whether it be the “ideal”, “real”, “implied”, or some other sort of reader). What it’s not, lol, as you observed, is an answer. Reader-response criticism, like all the other forms of criticism has it weaknesses, drawbacks, and does not provide a “right” answer. I mean, critics can’t even decide on who the reader is, so they certainly aren’t giving us one answer, but a whole spectrum of possible ones.
Yeah, I think the reader-response criticism is again a good school if combined with another, say like formalism. Reader-response alone just doesn't quite allow us to grasp the text as a whole, and I think there is too much area for personal views with the reader-response method. Not that that is necessarily a bad thing, but for criticism it is not the whole thing and can limit us on how we see the work.