Slide One: Reader Response Criticism

Welcome. I’m Dr. Liza Long, and in this presentation, we’re going to learn about reader response theory. I’m expecting that you are already at least a little familiar with reader response, whether you’ve heard it called that or not. This is a type of literary analysis that you have likely engaged in throughout high school and perhaps even in your other English courses.

But now we’ll formalize our study of reader response as a critical theory, learning more about methods and history of this critical approach to texts. You’ll notice that unsurprisingly, the reader is at the center of the analysis when we do reader response. We’re actually going to look at two types of reader response and two type of readers: a subjective reader response (that’s all about you and your interactions with the text), and a receptive reader response, where we consider the implied reader, a hypothetical reader who doesn’t actually exist but for whom the text seems to have been written.

Why focus on the reader? I love this quote from reader response theorist Louise Rosenblatt. She said, “I find it helpful to visualize a little scene: on a darkened stage I see the figures of the author and the reader, with the book—the text of the poem or play or novel—between them. The spotlight focusses on one of them so brightly that the others fade into practical invisibility. Throughout the centuries, it has become apparent, usually either the book or the author has received major illumination. The reader has tended to remain in shadow, taken for granted, to all intents and purposes invisible. Like Ralph Ellison’s hero, the reader might say, “I am invisible, understand, simply because people refuse to see me.” Here or there a theoretician may start to take him seriously, and the spotlight may seem from time to time to hover over him, but actually he has never for long held the center of attention.”

When doing subjective reader response, some questions you could ask might be, how am I responding to this idea or language? What does this make me think? What am I expecting next? As we read our assigned novel for this class, you’re probably already doing this in your reading responses. In those assignments, I’m explicitly asking you to respond to the text in this subjective, personal way.

Receptive reader response is more common in literary scholarship. With this approach, we’re asking ourselves to consider how a typical or implied reader might respond to the text. Again, this reader is a hypothetical construct, just as, if you think about it, the implied author is also a hypothetical construct. Remember that we learned how the New Critics abandoned author intent because, among other reasons, it’s not actually possible to know what the author intended, even if the author is around to tell us. This is an especially interesting point in light of a concept called paratext, or text that is written about a text. We will learn more about this, with J.K. Rowling and YA author John Green as examples, when we watch Lindsey Ellis’s video “Death of the Author.”

It’s probably already abundantly clear how this type of criticism is different from New Criticism. In fact, it’s in many respects a strong reaction to the sterile and clinical approach that New Critics took to literature, placing the text at the center of the target. Now, with reader response criticism, instead, we’re going to look at how the text affects the reader: either you in subjective criticism, or the implied reader in receptive criticism. As part of our receptive approach, we will also consider how readers from different demographic groups might respond to texts in different ways.

Slide Two: Subjective Reader Response

Just as we took the tool of close reading from New Criticism, we will take subjective reader responses to texts from reader response theory. Going forward, for every text we read, you should engage in a brief reader response exercise. Here are some guidelines for how to do this:

1. Read the text: Begin by reading the text closely, paying attention to the language, structure, and themes. This should feel familiar from your experiences with New Criticism.
2. Reflect on your own experiences: Think about how your own experiences and emotions relate to the themes and characters in the text. Consider how the text makes you feel and what thoughts or memories it evokes.
3. Respond to the text: Write down your thoughts and reactions to the text, either in a journal or as annotations in the margins of the text itself. Consider how your interpretation differs from or aligns with traditional interpretations of the text.
4. Consider how your response might differ from others’ responses.  Share your responses with others and engage in discussion and debate about the different interpretations and perspectives that the text can generate.
5. Reflect on the process: Reflect on how your personal experiences and emotions influenced your interpretation of the text and consider how this approach differs from other approaches to literary analysis.

Let’s take a look at the poem “What an Indian Thought He Saw When He Saw a Comet” by Tso-le-oh-who, a Cherokee author whose poem was published in the Cherokee Advocate in 1853. We don’t know much else about the poem’s author, but we can conclude that he had literary talent if we look at the complexities throughout the poem. Don’t get too hung up on the poem’s creative spelling. English spelling was not standardized at this point in time. When we’re doing subjective reader response, it’s inevitable that we will all have different reactions to the poem. As I read the poem, think about your responses.

(Reads “What an Indian Thought He Saw When He Saw a Comet”)

For me, the first thing I think of is a book I read last summer called Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown. This book sought to tell American history from the Native Indigenous perspective, and it really opened my eyes to some of the injustices that Americans perpetrated on Native Americans, including the Trail of Tears, where Cherokee nation members from 1830 to 1850 were forced from their homelands, with many dying along the way. That this poem was written shortly after the worst of that forced relocation was a detail I personally noticed because I had recently read about this historical period. The reference to the explorer John C. Fremont, who came West and found gold, felt especially harsh in light of this historical event. I read the description of the comet as a “sky  rocket of eternity” as potentially exacting judgment and retribution on behalf of the Native Americans.

But another thought that comes to me is the clear sense of awe and wonder at a heavenly sight this poem captures so brilliantly. In this, I can connect empathetically with the author and the text. I thought of my own experiences in 2017 when I witnessed the total eclipse of the sun from Ontario, Oregon. It was one of the most magical and mysterious moments of my life.  These lines really brought this to mind for me: “Thou that art cloth’d in mistery/ More startling and more glorious than thine own/Encircling fires—profound as the oceans/Of shoreless space.”

And the idea of riding the comet, though impossible, felt exhilarating to me. In crafting a subjective reader response thesis statement, I decide to focus on that second response: “Reading “What an Indian Thought When He Saw a Comet” by Tso-le-oh-woh, I feel connected to our nation’s past through a common experience of celestial wonder as I recall how the 2017 total solar eclipse influenced me. This common experience of wonder can serve to unite us in our humanity.”.

This is what I’m going to be looking for when you write your theoretical response. You’re going to do a subjective reading of the text you choose, then use the questions below the text to create a thesis statement. Then you will support that thesis statement with evidence from the text.

You can engage in a sort of counterargument with this type of criticism as well by considering how other people might interpret the evidence that you use and then explain as you would with a counter argument, why your way is a more correct or a more appropriate reading. As my annotations to the AI draft essays show you, I want to see very specific, concrete examples from the text itself. Focus on the language and how it works to make the reader feel something. What does the reader expect? What does the reader anticipate? Use the checklist and the questions to guide your response.

Slide Three: Terms to Use in Reader Response

Here are some terms to use in reader response. I’ve also bolded some terms that work well in this type of criticism in my annotation to the AI models.

Affect/effect in both senses of these words can be useful to consider. How does the text affect you or the implied reader? Expectation and anticipation are also important concepts for this type of criticism. How does the text meet or not meet your expectations? What do you anticipate will happen and why?

Here’s a simple checklist to follow, starting with your subjective reading of the text you choose to use for your theoretical response. I recommend that you read all three texts, then choose the one that resonates most with you personally.

1. Practice active reading. Make notes, ask questions, respond to the text, and record your responses.
2. Focus on the details (much as you do with a close reading) and ask how your response to the text might change if those details changed.
3. Decide whether you will write a subjective or a receptive response to the text.

You might write in the third person if you’re doing receptive reader response, but subjective should always use the first-person pronoun “I.” I think this will probably be relatively easy, especially compared with New Criticism, but remember that you should still consider formal elements. Also, with this type of criticism, if you have actual information about the actual intended reader, this is worth noting in your response. You may choose either subjective or receptive when you are completing this assignment this week, so have fun with it. As always, if you have questions, feel free to reach out to me. I’m really looking forward to seeing how you interact with the text and how you apply reader response criticism.