Keesey spoke a mouthful. there were many types of reader- response ideas that he threw out, wow, but the thing that stuck out to me was this quote,
So the various kinds of reader-response critics find much to argue about. But they agree on one main point: since the "poem" exists only when the reader (hower defined) encounters the text, literary critism must focus on that encounter (Keesey 138).
I thought it was nice that these critics think about us, the reader(s). This idea is all about the reader, right? It's funny though how the reader needs to meet certain criteria to fit inside one of thiese critics ideal state to be looked at in this subjective form of critism. Ironic? I am a little startled by how Keesey is introducing all these ideas, and each new idea-by idea I mean critical theory-seems to be even more opinionated then the last one. Is this a trend I see, probably not, but why not put that out there. My opinion matters!
Comments (2)
I think that there should be a relationship between the reader and writer because of the effect that each one has on each other. The reader depends on the writer to provide literature that is going to, at the very minimum, entertain the reader. The writer depends on the reader to understand the specific messages, and pass on the information that the writer has originally sent. They both are crucial to the other's understanding on the importance of the literature. As for the last section of your blog, I think that Dr. Jerz said it in the last class: we cannot necessarily take Keesey all too seriously, although we can admire and respect many of his judgments.
Posted by Jason Pugh | February 21, 2007 4:28 PM
Posted on February 21, 2007 16:28
As Sting once sung, "packed like lemmings into shiny metal boxes."
This line kept running through my head as I tried hard to figure out why anyone would spend any time categorizing readers.
Posted by Dave Moio | February 21, 2007 9:33 PM
Posted on February 21, 2007 21:33