May want to quickly point out the Archetypal Criticism, by carl Jung which obviously ties in well.
Reader Response.
Decent website of sources: http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm#reception
Perhaps I don't need to decide which of the reader-responsers to choose because I can suggest that that is something for another dissertion to evaluate or go into but then suggest either way it needs to depend (with reference to my question again) that it is dependent of a greater context of people
they all have their merits
I.
A. Richards
Louise Rosenblatt - Transactional
analysis
Stanley Fish - Interpretive
communities
Wolfgang Iser - Implied
reader
Hans-Robert Jauss - Horizons
of expectations
Reader response criticism starts with what formalist literary criticism called the "affective fallacy" — that the response of the reader is relevant to understanding a text
There are different approaches within this school of critical theory,
however; some look at the work from the individual reader's point of
view, while others focus on how groups or communities view the text. For
these schools of criticism, it's what the text does to the
reader that's important, and not necessarily the work itself, the
author's intent, or the social, political, or cultural context in which
it was written.
The label "reader-oriented criticism" has become popular since the
reader's experiences and expectations often change as time passes. In
addition, a reader may approach the text with different points of view,
or lenses. That is, the reader may be able to see the value in his or
her own personal response while also analyzing the text based on
another critical approach.
Rosenblatt argued that, while the reader is guided by the ideas and
words that the author laid out, it is ultimately each individual
reader's experience in reading the work that actually gives it
meaning. Since each person brings unique knowledge and beliefs to the
reading transaction, the text will mean different things to different
people. It is that meaning — the reader's meaning — that should be
assessed, as opposed to solely looking at the author's text in a vacuum.
[x]Other critics focus on how the reader's mind relates to the text, in
what is known as Psychological Reader Response Criticism. The reader is
seen as a psychological subject who can be studied based on his or her
unconscious drives brought to the surface by his or her reaction to a
text. Reading the text can become almost a therapeutic experience for
the reader, as the connections that he or she makes reveal truths about
his or her personality.
Psychological Reader Response Criticism in many ways fueled another
similar theory — Subjective Reader Response Criticism — which takes the
personal, psychological component even further. In this theory, the
reader’s interpretation of a text is thought to be deeply influenced by
personal and psychological needs first, rather than being guided by the
text. Each reading is thought to bring psychological symptoms to the
surface, from which the reader can find his or her own unconscious
motives.
Other schools of reader response criticism look not at the reader as an
individual, but as a theoretical reader. The "implied reader," for
example, an idea introduced by Wolfgang Iser, is the reader who is
required for the text — the reader who the author imagines when writing,
and who he or she is writing for. This reader is guided by the text,
which contains gaps meant for the reader to fill, explaining and making
connections within the text. The reader ultimately creates meaning based
not only on what is in the text, but what the text has provoked inside
him or her. Theorist Stanley Fish introduced what he called the
"informed reader," who brings prior, shared knowledge to the experience
of reading.
Social Reader Response Criticism focuses on "interpretive communities" —
groups that have shared beliefs and values — and how these groups use
particular strategies that affect both the text and their reading
behaviors. It is the group that then determines what an acceptable
interpretation of the text is, with the meaning being whatever the group
says that it is. A book club
or a group of college students for example, based on their own cultural
and group beliefs, will generally agree on the ultimate meaning on a
text.
As an extension of the social theory, these like-minded groups can also
approach and view the text from different lenses. If the group finds
certain elements to be more significant than others, it might examine
the text from this particular viewpoint, or lens.
Arguments Against Reader Response Criticism Generally
It is often argued that reader response criticism allows for any
interpretation of a text to be considered valid, and can devalue the
content of the text as a result. Others argue that the text is being
ignored completely or that it is impossible to properly interpret a text
without taking into consideration the culture or era in which it is
written. In addition, a larger complaint is that these theories do not
allow for the reader’s knowledge and experience to be expanded by the
text at all.
I need some literature / books to refer to i think
Simon Johnson
www.thephilosophicalphotographer.co.uk
Simon Johnson. Powered by Blogger.