Reader, Response and Interpretation
Reader-response criticism is not a conceptually unified critical position. Its theory is instead associated with the work of critics who use the reading process and response to centralize the process of interpretation. The interpretive process delineates the author’s attitude towards the reader, categorizes types of readers, and how different readers reach the meaning and the relation of reading conventions to the texts under discussion. The status of a text is discussed in relation to its objectivity. It is argued that a text cannot be objective. Writing and reading are the same activity, and literary response is a result of influence; therefore, the treatment of a text as an objective enterprise does not justify the aim of literary criticism. The meaning of the text is incomplete without the reader’s revaluation. The prominent question is how far a text determines its own meaning and how far is the meaning determined by the reader.
College Publisher, USA.
BLEICH, D. (1975), Readings and Feelings An Introduction to Subjective Criticism
Urbana, Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English, USA.
BROOKS, P. “Competent Readers” Review Of Jonathan Culler’s Structuralist Poetics
Diacritics 6, no: 1 (Spring 1976): p. 23-26.
BRUNS, G.L. (1992), Hermeneutics Ancient and Modern New Haven: Yale University
CULLER, J. (1976), Structuralist Poetics, Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of
Literature Ithaca: Cornell University Press, USA.
FISH, S.E (1976), Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive
Communities Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, USA.
___ Interpreting the Varioum Critical Inquiry 2 (Spring 1976): p. 465-83.
___ Reader Literature in the: Affective Stylistics New Literary History 2 no:1
(Autumn 1970): p. 123-62.
GIBSON, W. “Authors, Speakers, Readers and Mock-Reader”, College English 11
(February 1950): p. 265-69.
HOLLAND, N.N. (1968), The Dynamics of Response New York: OUP,
___ 5 Readers Reading New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975
___ “Unity Identity Text Self”, PMLA 90, no: 5 (October 1975): p. 813-22
INGARDEN, R. (1973), The Cognition of the Literary Work of Art, Translated by Ruth
Ann Cowley and Kenneth Olson Illinois: Northwestern University Press, USA.
ISER, W. “In Defense of Authors and Readers: For the Readers”, Novel 11
(Fall 1977): p. 19-25.
JAUSS, H.R. “Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory”, Translated by
Elizabeth Benzingar, New Literary History 2 (Autumn 1970): p. 7-37.
MICHEALS, W.B. “The Interpreter’s Self Peirce on the Cartesian Subject”,
The Georgia Reviews: 31 (Summer 1977), p.383-402.
POULET, G. (1972), Criticism and the Experience of Interioty, In the Structuralist
Controversy: The Language of Criticism and Science of Man, Edited by Richard, Macksey and Eugenio Donato Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, USA.
PRINCE, G. “Introduction to the Study of the Narratee”, Poetiqque no: 14 (1973):
RICHARD, I.A (1935), Practical Criticism, A study of Literary Judgment New York:
Harcourt, Brace Co., USA.
RIFFATERRE, M. (1978), Semiotics of Poetry Bloomington: Indiana University Press,
ROSENBLATT, L. (1937), Literature as Exploration New York: Appleton-
SCHLEİHFER, D. (1998), Literary Criticism and Cultural Studies New York: Longman
TOMPKİNS, J. (1994), Reader-Response Criticism From Formalism to Post-
structuralism, Baltimore and London, USA.