We're only less than half way through the semester and already I feel like we've covered so much material in class. There have been many many readings, all covering a different way of looking at a piece of writing, and each (mostly) unique and interesting. When Karissa posed the blog carnival question of what critic has been the most stimulating, Iser's article, "Readers and the Concept of the Implied Reader" immediately came to mind. And I bet you all thought I'd pick the irony article...
So why Iser and not the expected irony article? Well, while I love irony and live it through every word dripping in sarcasm, it didn't spark anything "new". Iser's outline of the different types of readers when analyzing literature made me question what type of reader I am and why there needs to be so many distinctions between them in general. It was also an excellent article in providing insight into the reader-response form of criticism, one of my favorites.
Just because I enjoyed the article and found it most "stimulating", it does not mean I agreed with everything written. It was just one the provided me with the most "food for thought", as they say (who is "they"? Why do "they" get to say things all the time? Is there an implied "they" as well as the "real" they? Which am I?) I agree that there are different types of readers when looking at a piece yet...I'm not sure if so much value should be placed on one specific type. The ideal reader is just that- ideal. Something unobtainable. Why not focus on the "real" reader, the common one? Because real people say stupid things about literature, and that makes for poor literary criticism.
I like what Jay wrote about reader-response in relation to this article, "While competence is a necessary component to reading literature, the fact that a reader already brings in their own judgments into a text is very influential to the literature itself." It is what the reader takes from a piece of literature that is important, not that they are necessarily conforming to a type of reader. Different pieces mean different things to readers and, for the most part, that's ok.
Posted by VanessaKolberg at February 21, 2007 8:37 AM | TrackBackSo... the article that spoke most to you was *not* the one about irony. Under that crusty exterior, does there burn an idealistic faith in the interpretive power of the reader?
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at February 21, 2007 9:35 AMYes Dr. Jerz, I did not choose the irony article. Although I'm like the poster-child for that article, it didn't "speak" to me as much as another one. I didn't take as much from it as another one that I didn't know as much about.
"Crusty exterior"? haha Thanks, I think...There's a bit of idealistic hope beneath it, I assure you.
Posted by: Nessa at February 22, 2007 1:46 PM