Getting Acquainted with Charles Bressler

            In Literary Criticism, Bressler poses the question, “can’t the story have more than one meaning?”  I contend that the answer is yes.  A single story may have numerous interpretations.  Bressler explains that all readers have their own unique “worldview” which provides readers with a dynamic personal context for how they assign meaning to what they read.  This personal context makes every interpretation of a text as unique as the individual doing the interpreting.  For example, I might read a poem for the first time and be drawn to specific elements which lead me to a certain interpretation, but upon rereading the poem at a later time my worldview may have changed which leads me to a dissimilar understanding of the text.

            Bressler proclaims that “formal training in literary criticism or working understanding of literary theory” is necessary for readers to become critical readers.  I do not agree that this is imperative, although I am sure that it does help.  I think that people are capable of reading and assigning multiple and even contradictory meanings to a text without having to study Pope or Marx.  Many readers are capable of critically evaluating what they read without “training” in literary criticism.  Bressler also states “When we oppose, disregard, or ignore literary theory, we are in danger of blindly accepting our more frequently than not unquestioned prejudices and assumptions.”  I do not agree with this statement.  Bressler contends that many readers are practicing literary critics without formal training.  Readers do not necessarily need to be trained how to think in order to assign meaning to a text, nor do their minds need training to be inquisitive and inquiring.