Reader-Response Theory

In essence, reader-response theory is a backlash against the proponents of New Criticism who
assume that meaning existed solely in the text and can only be deciphered by competent literary
critic who possesses concise analytic skills. Proponents of this theory focus on the meaning that
is brought about by the reader and the text from the way the former responds to a specific text in
a specific manner. Thus, insights and inferences by the reader informed by his background
knowledge and experiences informs the interpretation which the reader arrives at. However,
distinctions among the reader oriented critics have been established basing on whether a text has
an objective existence or not. On one hand, we have critics such as Louise Rosenblatt, Wolfgang
Iser, and Hans Robert Jauss who underscore the fact that meaning is created through a
transactional process between the text and the reader while on the other hand we have Norman
Holland, David Bleich and Stanley Fish who theorise that the meaning created is solely the
individual work of the reader.

Rosenblatt (1978) views the text ‘as an object of paper and ink until some reader responds to the
marks on the page as verbal symbols’ (23). It is the reader’s activities on the text that creates
meaning out of the inkblots by what Rosenblatt posits as a transaction between the reader and the
text. Iser on his part theorises that the convergence between the reader and the text is what brings
the literary work into existence. Though not accurately pinpointed at, Iser (1978) construes that
this convergence will ‘always remain virtual, as it is not to be identified either with the reality of
the text or with the individual disposition of the reader’ (275). He points out at the artistic (author
oriented) and aesthetic (reader oriented) poles in any literary work through which meaning is
negotiated. Thus, meaning can never be imagined solely by the reader or generated alone by the
text but rather generated through the active process of reading since ‘the literary work cannot be
completely identical with the text, or the realisation of the text, but in fact must lie halfway
between the two’ (Iser, 1972: 269).

Jauss (1982) uses the term ‘horizons of expectations’ to describe the socio-cultural norms and
assumption that mould a reader’s interpretation of any literary work in a given historical
moment. For Jauss, any literary text is linked to a historical past and therefore any interpretation
and meaning are tied to the prevailing cultural environment. Instead of the literary work standing
alone, Jauss underscore the fact that a literary work depends upon the reader to assimilate and
actualise the text. However, an important aspect to note about Jauss is his reference to the
cultural environment which aids in the reader’s interpretation. In other words, the reader’s
interpretation is informed by the social background in which he is and therefore has to seek a
common ground with it in order to validate his interpretation. Rosenblatt (1978) echoes this by
pointing out that a written work does not have same meaning for all the readers, and that each
individual brings background knowledge, belief, values, cultural expectation and reading context
to the act of reading (144).

Mokaya, V. N. | Reader-Response Theory 1

Other than the synergistic relationship between the reader and the text, other theorist of reader-
response (Norman Holland, David Bleich and Stanley Fish) place meaning and interpretation
solely a creation of the reader regardless of the influence of the text. According to Holland
(1980), a reader’s engagement with a text is a platform for him to bring his unique expectations,
fears and wishes to the text through DEFT an acronym for defence-expectation-fantasy-
transformation to create his identity. Holland further points out that this identity is achieved
when the reader fully expresses his own drives and through this, he arrives at an interpretation
which is a recreation of his psychological process. Bleich (1978) also posits a psychological
explanation of the reader’s interaction with the text just like Holland when he points out that
meaning is located in the reader’s mind. Through the reading process, a reader ‘symbolises’ with
the text which is then followed by ‘resymbolization when the first act of perception and
identification produce in us a need, desire, or demand for explanation’.

Fish (1972), just like Holland and Bleich, theorises that meaning is created by the reader without
the control of the text. But unlike the others, he argues that it should be an ‘informed’ reader who
has linguistic and literary competence, and not just any reader. For him, readers will have
different interpretation because meaning is a creation of the reader and not the text. Just like
Rosenblatt who argues that the interpretation of any reader is espoused by a shared cultural
milieu, Fish uses the term ‘interpretive communities’ that dictates how a text should be
understood. He strongly believes that knowledge is not always objective but conditioned by the
social context in which one lives. Thus, the meaning created by the reader through his
interpretation is restricted within the purview of the interpretive community which consists of
agreed upon conventions.

Despite the different perspectives on whether meaning is solely a creation of the reader or a
synergy between the reader and the text, the theorists unanimously agree that is not inherent to
the text but the reader. Each theorist provides a better understanding of how meaning is created
by the reader through active engagement with the text. My standpoint on this is that meaning is
solely a creation of an informed and competent reader with concise analytical skills. A passive
reader, in this case, meaning is an illusion unless he acquires the analytical skills that will enable
him to interpret a text. Finally, the socio-cultural background of the reader is vital is essential for
the reader to create meaning since the reader’s mind is a microcosm of the society which he lives
in and therefore cannot have knowledge beyond the conventions of the society.

References

Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fish, S. (1972). Is there a Text in This Class? The Authority of Interpretive Communities.
Berkley: California University Press.
Holland, N. (1980). Unity, Identify, Text, Self. In J. P. Tompkins (Ed.), Reader Response
Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism. (pp. 118-133). Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.
______, N.(1975). 5 Readers Reading. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Mokaya, V. N. | Reader-Response Theory 2
Iser, W. (1972). The Implied Reader: Patterns of Communication in Prose Fiction from Bunyan
to Beckett. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jauss, H. R. (1982). Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. (T. Bahti, Trans.). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Rosenblatt, L. (1972). The Reading Process: A Phenomenological Approach. New Literary
History 3(2), 279-299.
Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary
Work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Mokaya, V. N. | Reader-Response Theory 3