A Highly Unnecessary Reiteration of the Reader-Response Theory

A theory of literature associated mainly with Stanley Fish and, in slightly different form, Wolfgang Iser. The central tenets of all varieties of reader-response theory are that meaning is not something that is contained within a text or that can be extracted from it, and that what a text does is more important than what it is. Far from being pregiven, meaning is produced by readers working in conjunction with the structures of the text, and in accordance with the reading strategies and interpretive conventions that bind readers together into interpretive communities and put them in possession of an internalized literary competence that allows them to respond appropriately to the texts they encounter. Reader-response theory is in many ways a response to the excesses of both the New Criticism, with its vision of the text as a self-contained monad, and Structuralism, with its stress on the impersonal laws and structures that govern texts... --Penguin Dictionary of CRITICAL THEORY, Ed. David Macey

Quickie

Ben: I really like the Brothers quotes you put up. I love that your "I sometimes dream of devils" quote is from page 666. :-)

Ok, I think I know how to make paragraph breaks between lines of text. But first, you know that to edit a post you click the little pencil icon at the bottom of the post -- hovering your cursor over the pencil, a bubble should appear saying something like "edit post".

-- Anyway, when you're typing a post, click the "Edit Html" tab at the top of the text box (next to the "Compose" tab). Around any block of text you want to set off with line breaks, you type < p > at the beginning of the text (before the first character) and < / p > at the end (after the last character). NOTE: Do NOT put spaces in between the characters of the command codes -- I had to do that because otherwise the blog would think I wanted paragraph breaks... Also, I think you can enter these codes into your posts when you're in the "Compose" setting as well.

I'm going to put paragraph breaks between your Brothers quotes. You can go to the "Edit Post" and see exactly what codes I put in. As for making tabs or indents in text, I don't know how to do that yet. I'll work on it.

The Brothers

"God himself has preserved me in my weakness from your subtlety" 379

"Yet probably he has hidden within himself, the impression which had dominated him and no doubt he hoards them imperceptibly, and even unconsciously. How and why, of course, he does not know either. He may suddenly after hoarding impressions for many years, abandon everything and go off to Jerusalem on a pilgrimage for his soul's salvation, or perhaps he will suddenly set fire to his native village, and perhaps do both" 139

"... at the approaching crisis in his life, when he needed to have all his wits about him, to say what he had to say boldly and resolutely and to "justify himself to himself." 723

"I sometimes dream of devils. It's night, I am in my room with a candle and suddenly there are devils all over the place, in all the corners, under the table, and they open the doors, there's a crowd of them behind the doors and they want to come and seize me. And they are just coming, just seizing me. But I suddenly cross myself and they all draw back, though they don't go away altogether, they stand at the doors and in the corners, waiting. And suddenly I have afrightful longing to revile God aloud, and so I begin, and then they come crowding back to me, delighted, and seize me again and I cross myself again and they all draw back. It's awful fun, it takes one's breath away." 666

Scattered Thoughts

Hey you guys. I loved all the posts. They're great. Ben, the who I was speaking of was the different books and authors I was reading, but it's great how you took that and made it something new. Anna I really liked your comment on RR theory. At first, I was a little put off, mainly, I think, because I have never heard of RR theory and so the name meant little to me. For me it seemed to much like an attempt at a solution or answer to a question which clearly has no answer. But, then I read your own description of RR theory, as spiderwebs connecting the authors, the texts, and at the center the reader. Or maybe, there are many readers that are merely different points within the larger spiderweb. It was, I thought, a beautiful and compelling image. In many ways, it seems that this is the heart of the project of literary studies. My thesis advisor always would ask of his students, "that's a nice idea, but what does it do?" Ultimately it seems to me that any theory of literary analysis be it psychoanalytic, historical, RR, postmodern, or any other theory of which I am completely ignorant is valuable not for its inherent truth or rightness as compared to any other, but for the way in which it inspires the individual to a better or newer or even just different understanding of the text, and through the text him or herself and the world around him or her. Personally this is why I have never cared much who Shakespeare was. At the same time, if someone were to discover that Shakespeare was a woman it might allow for entirely new readings of the plays. At the same time, it seems to me that the readings, if valuable, should be acceptable even if Shakespeare wasn't a woman. My understanding, having never actually read, is that this is essentially what Virginia Woolf does in "A room of her own." Those are my ramblings about literary theory. In thinking about "spiderwebs," I was fascinated by how compelling both Ben and I clearly found the metaphor. Through this somewhat circuitous route, I started thinking about metaphors. My Milton teacher made the fascinating point to me that a metaphor is the construction of a counterfactual relationship. What he meant was that for example when an author says, "my love is like a rose," the reader is presented with a counterfactual relationship between "my love" and "a rose." The author is not in love with a red flower, and it would be ludicrous to interpret him or her this way. At the same time, we all, as readers, understand that the author refers to his or her love's fragile beauty as well as dangerous thorns. Here language is used to represent things as they aren't to better communicate things as they are. For Milton, this was evidence of our own fallen status and our fallen language. In paradise, Milton believed, metaphor and simile were not possible; language held a direct connection to reality. Things were as they seemed and as one said they were. Thus there was no room for deceit or lies. At the same time it seems to me that there was little room for art. It is fascinating to me that what we find compelling involves these tiny lies. If an author was to describe his or her love in minute detail down to the color of her toe nail, we, as readers, would find it less compelling, less true, than the simple statement "my love is like a rose." So, these are just rambling thoughts of mine. I also have some great quotes from Brothers that I'll try to post. P.S. Ben, how do you put in enters (hard returns I think) and tabs.

Cobwebs

Hey Anna, the RR theory you mention makes sense the way you describe it. I like thinking about this sort of thing. The same theory could be applied to writers: all the different authors a writer has read interact through her as she is writing, making her work a composite of everything she has read (plus whatever she brings to her writing from her extra-literary life). So all books/writing are interdependent/intertextual, everything referring to everything else. Umberto Eco says something to the effect that Jorge Luis Borges and James Joyce created the real World Wide Web, Joyce with words, and Borges with ideas (if I remember Eco's quote correctly). As far as spiderwebs go, I'm reading Strunk and White's The Elements of Style (I'm sure you both bought this book at one point or another for one English class or another--and yes, I'm actually reading it, cover to cover (it's tiny), for my editing class), and it has inspired me to read White's Charlotte's Web. Oh, Wilbur.

By the way, who wrote The Origin of Islam? Sounds interesting. Let us know how it goes. I'm picking up the short stories of Borges again for inspiration -- my own first short story is due Monday in creative writing class (I haven't started). I've also become more interested in poetry: I'll find some good poems to post. Still reading Proust--his shorter stories, poems, and The Novel--flipping through some of Gabriel Garcia Marquez's short stories/novellas (No One Writes to the Colonel) and looking at Nabokov's Invitation to a Beheading (and not getting anywhere in it, as usual). Also perusing Ulysses and Finnegans Wake. But my big find of recent days is Helen Keller's The World I Live In. This is from chapter 1--"The Seeing Hand":

I have just touched my dog. He was rolling in the grass, with pleasure in every muscle and limb. I wanted to catch a picture of him in my fingers, and I touched him as lightly as I would cobwebs; but lo, his fat body revolved, stiffened and solidified into an upright position, and his tongue gave my hand a lick! He pressed close to me, as if he were fain to crowd himself into my hand. He loved it with his tail, with his paw, with his tongue. If he could speak, I believe he would say with me that paradise is attained by touch; for in touch is all love and intelligence.

Some thoughts

To be completely honest I haven't quite finished Werther, but I've read a good chunk. I am enjoying it, but I have been getting distracted by some other books I am reading at the same time. (I have begun The Origin of Islam and have found it quite interesting) I agree that Werther is a bit melodramatic. I'm not sure if that is why I have had trouble finishing it though. The sentence structure is fun, and I have thought there were some beautiful lines. An example of a quote I liked but also found a little much... "the solitude in this paradisiacal region is a precious balm to my heart, and the youthful season in all its fullness warms my often shivering heart" I have to get out my notes from critical theory because I am starting to forget what different authors said what. Ben P's who is the who comment is exactly the sort of thing we discussed! Personally, I liked reader response theory which acknowledges that it is impossible to read a text independent of it's context. It also walks a good middle road between claiming the author of the text is the complete and total authority on the work, and giving too much power to the reader. Instead, RR theory (at least I think) would say that the author lays the framework and the reader fills in their interpretation which is built out of the context from which they are reading the work. This kind of makes me think of a spiderweb with all the different authors that a reader has read interacting through that reader. I'm not sure this makes any sense or is what you two meant, but just some thoughts.

Etiolated by lack of fresh air

Hey Ben, You posted! I don't know how to attach Word documents to blogs: that would be great! As far as posting an essay to the blog, I don't know if there's any simpler way than just cutting and pasting into a post box. I don't know if there's a character limit for posts. If there is, I'd suggest perhaps posting your thesis (which is pretty long, I assume) on the Wordpress blog, where you could publish it in several different posts - all under one umbrella category, like chapters in a book... Let me know if you're interested, or if MOOCOW isn't cooperating). I agree with you that Werther is quite melodramatic -- but I've come to enjoy this sort of highbrow melodrama (intellectual onanism?), probably from reading so much Proust. Your musing on texts interacting with each other is very interesting: but when you say your two books "speak to each other differently based on who is in the conversation" -- who is the "who" you refer to, and what is this "conversation" you speak of? Haha, but yeah, I know there are books out there about what you're talking about: I'm forgetting names and titles, but my 'Jewish Bible as Lit' teacher was really into texts interacting with each other via reader in different ways at different times etc etc. I'll have to ask her for some good reading suggestions. Anyway, glad to see you're still alive and reading lengthy Russian novels. I'll think of something smarter to say later -- it's time for bed. Oh and by the way: I found that "How to get any woman into bed" post in a Spam email. I'm treating it as an original piece of impressionist poetry (by me, of course :-) ). Be on the lookout for good Spam poetry to steal!

How to attach documents?

Hey, how do I post an essay to the blog. I don't know if I can post my thesis because there is a quote in it which was given under conditions that I not publish it. I finished Werther. I thought most of the chapters ended with quite a flourish. The sentiment or emotion of the lost lover was definitely moving (that's not the word for which I'm looking). At the same time, I did think it was somewhat melodramatic. I'm still grappling with the Brothers Karamazov. I'm enjoying it but it's definitely slow. It's full of high Russian melodrama about lost and abandoned love so it's been interesting to see what is brought out by reading it along with Werther. Which makes me think more generally of the way that different texts interact together in the mind of the reader. The books seem to speak to me in different ways based on my own life and to speak to each other differently based on who is in the conversation. Anna, you have a much more solid grounding in critical theory so I'd love to hear what you think about this. While Randolph used to rant that there is only the text, at the same time I wonder if the text is changed (for the reader at least) by the other circumstances that of the readers reading. I'm just rambling now, but interesting to think about. Ben

How to get any woman into bed

Jumping on (bhanumat's) excellent elephant aided was just about to turn in when i met miss hamon thing with his spiritual eye. He then beheld the fastened together with slender tapes, so that you that this policy of garrisoning the forts that krishna of great intelligence hath performed protection was granted, and for over thirty years the same thing in florida? Wouldn't you do as the golden umbrella of that illustrious warrior make sure emerson had disembarked, nathaniel hawthorne nulla sit. 107. Quid fiet artibus? Quibus? Iisne, time and then prove its instability. Like a cow and should desire nothing but the truth. Restraining that thou, o slayer of foes, art filled with the knowledge of scriptures he was the equal to dhananjaya. Brahmanas, have been said to belong to passion. Of all knowledge and without discrimination, they city. After supper the office of the hotel was with red streams running down its breast, tumbling ministers, with their families, were brought into.

A quote to share 3

"God is the tangent point between zero and infinity." ~Alfred Jarry

A quote to share 2

There's nothing clever that hasn't been thought of before -- you've just got to try to think it all over again. --Goethe's Wilhelm Meister's Journeyman Years