"The sacrifice of the real reader's own beliefs would mean the loss of the whole repertoire of historical norms and values, and this in turn would entail the loss of the tension which is a precondition for the processing and for the comprehension that follows it." (Iser 146)
I felt that Iser's essay gave an outstanding view and interpretation of the different types of reader-response criticisms that can be employed. I chose this quote because for me it summed up the whole implied and actual reader struggle that I was having as I read this essay. My problem with the implied or hypothetical reader, which I also mention in my blog on Keesey, is the whole idea of a nonexistent person telling me what to comprehend from a text. Iser cleans up the idea behind the implied reader. There still has to be some type of structure for this reader-response method to work.
But, back to the quote, what I found interesting about this quote was that to have a true response the reader has to be real. Without human beliefs, emotions, and values, aren't we at risk of making the whole work obsolete? What would be the point of doing any of this, of even caring about literature and it's meaning if we take the humanity out of it? But, on the other hand, we do have to open ourselves up to new ideas and sometimes distance ourselves from our beliefs to delve into a role that the text offers for us. I believe there can be a fine line and as readers and critics we must know when the line can be crossed and when to stay on our own side.