"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.
Comments (2)
Great connection! I think I am seeing the light at the end of the tunnel when talking about reader-response. If we were machines or computers, then our response would fall apart because there would be only factual information used to form a response. Instead, as human readers, we have the ability to include our emotions and experiences within our responses.
I think that if machine made a reader-response then we could use that as a basis for our meaning. On the other hand, we would be moving away from the ideal reader because we would have had been influenced from something.
When working on a reader-response, do you think that we should only use our inner emotions and experiences or should we refer to other schools of criticism?
Posted by Derek Tickle | February 24, 2009 7:07 PM
Posted on February 24, 2009 19:07
Without a real reader, i do think that a work would become obsolete. What is the purpose of a work that has no emotional ties between work and reader? What is the purpose of writing if the author isnt evoking some emotion from a reader? I think as lit majors, we are trained to distance ourselves to a certain extent from the works we read. Even at a distance the emotions still show.
Posted by james lohr | February 26, 2009 10:14 AM
Posted on February 26, 2009 10:14