"Although no reader-response critic gives the text the autonomy that the formal critic would give it, some do see the text as considerably restricting the range of readings they will accept. So these critics must construct some hypothetical reader whose responses will be in conformity with the text's clues, and they show consequently, little interest in the responses of actual readers. Other reader-response critics largely reverse this emphasis." (Keesey 138)
Okay, so for the reader-response critic there are two main perspectives to consider, the actual reader or the hypothetical reader. Again, I have to say that perhaps the best solution to this is a mixture of both. The hypothetical or "implied" reader is difficult for me as an authority in reading text, because this perfect or ideal reader does not exist. But, on the other hand I can also see how actual readers can have flaws. An actual reader can, for example, have preconcieved ideas of how a poem or text should be written, or they can just not be qualified to be a critic. But, then we get into the whole arguement, who or what makes one qualified? Perhaps no one is truly qualified.
So, I think that this falls right back into the discussion we have been having in class; this is another school of criticism which doesn't seem to stand well on it's own. The choices are an actual reader, who has flaws, or a hypothetical reader who doesn't exist. And how can we be sure that one persons hypothetical reader is the perfect reader for that particular text?