Reader-Response Theory refers to the engagement that occurs between reader and text. It focuses on the readers' reaction to literature, and considers these reactions vital to the interpretation of text. It is also one of the most dramatic changes that literary theory as incurred.
Quick history
Regarding where the focus lied when interpreting literature, the 1920s saw very Romantic preoccupations with "the author," meaning the author's personal experiences, convictions, intentions, and so on. This approach shifted around the 1940s to New Criticism's exclusive emphasis on "the text, deriving meaning solely from symbols, rhythm, repetition, literary devices, etc. -- a very objective approach. It was in the 1960s that people started lending particular attention to the reader's response to literature (and the idea just kept gaining more and more prominence in the 70s).
Got it -- so the whole theory is that readers engage with a text, readers respond to the text, and these responses cultivate overall interpretations of that text. Right?
Sort of; that's the basic gist of it. But Reader-Response Theory is not truly so cut and dry; there's no single, all-encompassing, uniform view that theorists hold. Why? Because as humans with different experiences and values, we naturally approach life (and text) in alternate ways, and theorists recognize that. Theorists therefore can be categorized into different groups of emphasis. Using Richard Beach's "A Teacher's Introduction to Reader-Response Theories," let's look at some of these differing emphases to get an idea of what's out there.
Types of theorists:
Textual - "Focus on how readers draw on and deploy their knowledge of text or genre conventions to respond to specific text features."
Experiential - "Focus on the nature of the readers' engagement or experiences with texts"
Psychological - "Focus on readers' cognitive or subconscious processes and how these processes vary according to both unique individual personality and developmental detail"
Social - "Focus on the influence of the social context on the reader/text transition"
Cultural - "Focus on how readers' cultural roles, attitudes, and values shape responses.
Application to awe, the sublime, and wonder:
Louise Rosenblatt (who actually identified with the theory as far back as the late 30s, around the prominence of New Criticism) is considered a pioneer to the Reader-Response Theory. In her article, "The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response," she makes the following statement:
"In aesthetic reading...we draw on our reservoir of past experience with people and the world, our past inner linkage of words and things, our past encounters with spoken or written text. We listen to the sound of the words in the inner ear; we lend our sensations, our emotions, our sense of being alive, to the new experiences which, we feel, correspond to the text. We participate in the story, we identify with the characters, we share in their conflicts and their feeling."
As I am studying language's ability to evoke awe within the audience, I think the above statement is particularly relevant. Rosenblatt's words make me think of Martin Luther King, whose "I Have a Dream" speech drew in so many people across the nation and across the decades because of the connections his language was able to make with his audience -- listener-response, rather than reader-response. He drew on his "reservoir of past experience with people and the world" as it pertained to racism, and his audience did the same. His language facilitated, and continues to facilitate, a powerful way for audience members to lend their sensations, their emotions, their participation and identification to and with issues of race. In this sense of connection, of never-before-felt empowerment, of feeling like change so magnanimous was actually plausible, this larger than life sort of awe was emitted across the nation. But it was the audience's response that qualified King's speech as powerful. Without its response, the speech would have just been words on paper. The audience reaction brought the speech to a drastically higher level.
Now, as of late I've decided to narrow my topic down to language within storytelling, but the principle of Reader-Response Theory still applies. My inspiration came from reading a book on screenwriting. Screenwriting is a form of storytelling, and the book I've read, called Story by Robert McKee, discusses how vital consideration for the audience is when making a screenplay. McKee discusses how we cannot
resort to spectacle (effects, aesthetics) and especially not cliché -- neither will ever make a successful movie. A successful movie that wins the audience over is a movie that tells a good story, and tells it well. Telling indicates the use of language (though sometimes, language is unspoken), therefore to tell a story well, language must be craftily, economically, and wisely chosen. Granted, not all successful movies evoke awe, but the ones that do are certainly, at the very least, the ones that pay immense attention to language.
Other Students
I think Carly's Pecha Kucha on musicals has one of the most obvious ties to this theory as musicals depend on their audience's watching them and responding to them. I know our projects all need to contain some base in language and/or literature. It might be helpful for Carly to look at the script writing process of musicals and what goes into them with regards to the language selected.
As I am studying language's ability to evoke awe within the audience, I think the above statement is particularly relevant. Rosenblatt's words make me think of Martin Luther King, whose "I Have a Dream" speech drew in so many people across the nation and across the decades because of the connections his language was able to make with his audience -- listener-response, rather than reader-response. He drew on his "reservoir of past experience with people and the world" as it pertained to racism, and his audience did the same. His language facilitated, and continues to facilitate, a powerful way for audience members to lend their sensations, their emotions, their participation and identification to and with issues of race. In this sense of connection, of never-before-felt empowerment, of feeling like change so magnanimous was actually plausible, this larger than life sort of awe was emitted across the nation. But it was the audience's response that qualified King's speech as powerful. Without its response, the speech would have just been words on paper. The audience reaction brought the speech to a drastically higher level.
Now, as of late I've decided to narrow my topic down to language within storytelling, but the principle of Reader-Response Theory still applies. My inspiration came from reading a book on screenwriting. Screenwriting is a form of storytelling, and the book I've read, called Story by Robert McKee, discusses how vital consideration for the audience is when making a screenplay. McKee discusses how we cannot
resort to spectacle (effects, aesthetics) and especially not cliché -- neither will ever make a successful movie. A successful movie that wins the audience over is a movie that tells a good story, and tells it well. Telling indicates the use of language (though sometimes, language is unspoken), therefore to tell a story well, language must be craftily, economically, and wisely chosen. Granted, not all successful movies evoke awe, but the ones that do are certainly, at the very least, the ones that pay immense attention to language.
Other Students
I think Carly's Pecha Kucha on musicals has one of the most obvious ties to this theory as musicals depend on their audience's watching them and responding to them. I know our projects all need to contain some base in language and/or literature. It might be helpful for Carly to look at the script writing process of musicals and what goes into them with regards to the language selected.
Works Cited
Beach, Richard. A Teacher's Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, 1993. p. 17. Print.
Rosenblatt, Louise M. "The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response." Theory Into Practice 21.4 (1982): 268-277. Print.
Rosenblatt, Louise M. "The Literary Transaction: Evocation and Response." Theory Into Practice 21.4 (1982): 268-277. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment