In Literary
Criticism, Charles Bressler highlights the Reader-Oriented Critic Louise M.
Rosenblatt’s notion that a reader may find multiple interpretations for a poem
based on the text but also based on the specific reader’s personal
interpretations. Rosenblatt argued that
these multiple interpretations are all legitimate. He also claimed that every time a reader
reads a poem the poem is recreated. I
think it is good that literary theory began to give authority to the reader
rather than just the poem. However, I do
not fully understand Rosenblatt’s idea that reading is a give-and-take
relationship between the text and the reader.
Perhaps this is because I have a different connotation for give-and-take
which I consider to be reciprocal. I
don’t see how the reader can give anything to the text, but I may be thinking
about it too literally. After all, a
book or text is not a sentient being.
Reader-Oriented criticism requires an active reader to
assign meaning to the text. Jauss argued
that a text cannot have one universal meaning, because as time passes and
culture changes reader’s values change as well affecting their
interpretations. Iser argued that a text
does not have meaning on its own. It
only has meaning when read by a conscientious reader, and all readers have
their own distinct interpretations. Iser
argued that readers fill in “gaps” within a story about the characters and such
through expectations and readers expectations adapt as a story progresses. I wonder if Iser actually tested different
readers to compare their different expectations as they read through the same
text.
No comments:
Post a Comment