Reader-response criticism is a theory that focuses the attention on the reader's experience of the literary work rather than on the author or the content of the text. It is a postmodern theory, beginning in the 1960s and 70s in America and German, largely influenced by Norman Holland, Stanley Fish, Wolfgang Iser, Hans-Robert Jauss, Roland Barthes, and others.
Reader-response criticism theory argues that without the reader, the text has no meaning. The text is the object, the reader the subject. The author's intent is ignored and the reaction of the reader is of primary importance. According to this theory, "a text is not complete until it is read and interpreted" (Gioia and Gwynn, The Longman Anthology of Short Fiction). Gioia and Gwynn state "rather than declare one interpretation correct and the other mistaken, reader-response criticism recognizes that different insights are inevitable. Instead of trying to ignore or reconcile the contradictions, it explores them".
Wikepedia states "Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasized that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism".
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there, does it still make a sound? :) This idea of reading the text as a performing art is particularly interesting to me as a performer. We are told in some schools of thought that there is no point in performing or composing without an audience to hear the music, but I don't think that is always true. However, without an audience, it is a completely different experience. With regard to reading the Bible, I think it is incredibly important to take your own experience and interpretation of the text into account, but it is not the only thing that is important. That would be like singing a song in Italian and not knowing what I was singing because I had never translated it to English.
What a nice analogy- your performing without an audience. I agree with you. I think the reader plays a primary role, but the text plays an important part as well. I believe the reader makes the experience whole.
I think the point made by Gioia and Gwynn about, "rather than declare one interpretation correct and the other mistaken, reader-response criticism recognizes that different insights are inevitable. Instead of trying to ignore or reconcile the contradictions, it explores them." Would anyone agree or disagree that reader-response criticism has close ties with psychoanalytic criticism? It seems as though the reader-response act in and of itself is very psychological.
This approach makes sense to me. However, if we each have different interpretations according to our own experiences, what is the Truth? There is no such thing as objective truth here. 2 examples of Reader-response - I read a Bible story, and I find one thing interesting...A person in the Middle East reads the same story, he finds something Totally different interesting. Same Scripture, 2 readers, interpretations...we're both blessed. Another example - I write and perform in the local theater here. The writing and performance is only half the "story", the completion lies with the audience and their interpretation of what I have written and performed. I also like what Pam wrote about "conversation."
This approach is in direct contrast to the approach which I studied. I enjoy this approach much better, because there is room for theological interpretation. In historical criticism that is not the case.
started by Mary Price on 16 Feb 10
Reader-response criticism theory argues that without the reader, the text has no meaning. The text is the object, the reader the subject. The author's intent is ignored and the reaction of the reader is of primary importance. According to this theory, "a text is not complete until it is read and interpreted" (Gioia and Gwynn, The Longman Anthology of Short Fiction). Gioia and Gwynn state "rather than declare one interpretation correct and the other mistaken, reader-response criticism recognizes that different insights are inevitable. Instead of trying to ignore or reconcile the contradictions, it explores them".
Wikepedia states "Reader-response criticism argues that literature should be viewed as a performing art in which each reader creates his or her own, possibly unique, text-related performance. It stands in total opposition to the theories of formalism and the New Criticism, in which the reader's role in re-creating literary works is ignored. New Criticism had emphasized that only that which is within a text is part of the meaning of a text. No appeal to the authority or intention of the author, nor to the psychology of the reader, was allowed in the discussions of orthodox New Critics. The New Critics' position assumed an objective, fixed text that could be studied apart from any human being, and this assumption persisted even into postmodern criticism".
This idea of reading the text as a performing art is particularly interesting to me as a performer. We are told in some schools of thought that there is no point in performing or composing without an audience to hear the music, but I don't think that is always true. However, without an audience, it is a completely different experience.
With regard to reading the Bible, I think it is incredibly important to take your own experience and interpretation of the text into account, but it is not the only thing that is important. That would be like singing a song in Italian and not knowing what I was singing because I had never translated it to English.
I believe the reader makes the experience whole.