eBook - ePub
Interpretive Conventions
The Reader in the Study of American Fiction
Steven Mailloux
This is a test
Partager le livre
- 230 pages
- English
- ePUB (adapté aux mobiles)
- Disponible sur iOS et Android
eBook - ePub
Interpretive Conventions
The Reader in the Study of American Fiction
Steven Mailloux
DĂ©tails du livre
Aperçu du livre
Table des matiĂšres
Citations
Ă propos de ce livre
In Interpretive Conventions, Steven Mailloux provides a general introduction to reader-response criticism while developing his own specific reader-oriented approach to literature. He examines five influential theories of the reading processâthose of Stanley Fish, Jonathan Culler, Wolfgang Iser, Norman Holland, and David Bleich. He goes on to argue the need for a more comprehensive reader-response criticism based on a consistent social model of reading. He develops such a reading model and also discusses American textual editing and literary history.
Foire aux questions
Comment puis-je résilier mon abonnement ?
Il vous suffit de vous rendre dans la section compte dans paramĂštres et de cliquer sur « RĂ©silier lâabonnement ». Câest aussi simple que cela ! Une fois que vous aurez rĂ©siliĂ© votre abonnement, il restera actif pour le reste de la pĂ©riode pour laquelle vous avez payĂ©. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Puis-je / comment puis-je télécharger des livres ?
Pour le moment, tous nos livres en format ePub adaptĂ©s aux mobiles peuvent ĂȘtre tĂ©lĂ©chargĂ©s via lâapplication. La plupart de nos PDF sont Ă©galement disponibles en tĂ©lĂ©chargement et les autres seront tĂ©lĂ©chargeables trĂšs prochainement. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Quelle est la différence entre les formules tarifaires ?
Les deux abonnements vous donnent un accĂšs complet Ă la bibliothĂšque et Ă toutes les fonctionnalitĂ©s de Perlego. Les seules diffĂ©rences sont les tarifs ainsi que la pĂ©riode dâabonnement : avec lâabonnement annuel, vous Ă©conomiserez environ 30 % par rapport Ă 12 mois dâabonnement mensuel.
Quâest-ce que Perlego ?
Nous sommes un service dâabonnement Ă des ouvrages universitaires en ligne, oĂč vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă toute une bibliothĂšque pour un prix infĂ©rieur Ă celui dâun seul livre par mois. Avec plus dâun million de livres sur plus de 1 000 sujets, nous avons ce quâil vous faut ! DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Prenez-vous en charge la synthÚse vocale ?
Recherchez le symbole Ăcouter sur votre prochain livre pour voir si vous pouvez lâĂ©couter. Lâoutil Ăcouter lit le texte Ă haute voix pour vous, en surlignant le passage qui est en cours de lecture. Vous pouvez le mettre sur pause, lâaccĂ©lĂ©rer ou le ralentir. DĂ©couvrez-en plus ici.
Est-ce que Interpretive Conventions est un PDF/ePUB en ligne ?
Oui, vous pouvez accĂ©der Ă Interpretive Conventions par Steven Mailloux en format PDF et/ou ePUB ainsi quâĂ dâautres livres populaires dans Literature et Literary Criticism Theory. Nous disposons de plus dâun million dâouvrages Ă dĂ©couvrir dans notre catalogue.
Informations
Sujet
LiteratureSous-sujet
Literary Criticism TheoryCHAPTER ONE
Literary Theory and Psychological Reading Models
The Affective Fallacy is a confusion between the poem and its results (what it is and what it does). ⊠It begins by trying to derive the standard of criticism from the psychological effects of the poem and ends in impressionism and relativism.
âMonroe C. Beardsley and W. K. Wimsatt, âThe Affective Fallacyâ
However disciplined by taste and skill, the experience of literature is, like literature itself, unable to speak.
âNorthrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism
American literary theory has seen an explosion of interest in readers and reading. There is talk of implied readers, informed readers, fictive readers, ideal readers, mock readers, superreaders, literents, narratees, interpretive communities, and assorted reading audiences. The term âreader-response criticismâ has been used to describe a multiplicity of approaches that focus on the reading process: affective, phenomenological, subjective, transactive, transactional, structural, deconstructive, rhetorical, psychological, speech act, and other criticisms have been indiscriminately lumped together under the label âreader response.â In these first two chapters I will bring some order into this metacritical chaos by comparing the most prominent models of reading and the critical theories based on those models. To do this, I will investigate the work of the five reader-response critics who have been most influential in the United States: Stanley Fish, Norman Holland, David Bleich, Wolfgang Iser, and Jonathan Culler. Out of this investigation will come an agenda for developing a reader-oriented approach to American fiction study.
Reader-Response Criticism?
All reader-response critics focus on readers during the process of reading. Some examine individual readers through psychological observations and participation; others discuss reading communities through philosophical speculation and literary intuition. Rejecting the Affective Fallacy of American New Criticism, all describe the relation of text to reader. Indeed, all share the phenomenological assumption that it is impossible to separate perceiver from perceived, subject from object. Thus they reject the textâs autonomy, its absolute separateness, in favor of its dependence on the readerâs creation or participation. Perception is viewed as interpretive; reading is not the discovery of meaning but the creation of it. Reader-response criticism replaces examinations of a text in-and-of-itself with discussions of the reading process, the âinteractionâ of reader and text.
Stanley Fishâs early essay, âLiterature in the Reader: Affective Stylisticsâ (1970) presented one influential version of this reader-response criticism. Fish viewed a sentence in the text not as âan object, a thing-in-itself, but an event, something that happens to, and with the participation of, the reader.â His claims were aggressively descriptive: âIn my method of analysis, the temporal flow is monitored and structured by everything the reader brings with him, by his competences; and it is by taking these into account as they interact with the temporal left-to-right reception of the verbal string that I am able to chart and project the developing response.â1 And the developing response was that of the âinformed reader,â a reader with the ability to understand the text and have the experience the author intended.2 In this âaffective stylistics,â Fish talked as if a text manipulated the readerâthe text forced the reader to perform certain cognitive actsâand Fish, as practical critic, described that manipulative process. As a critical theorist Fish attacked formalist approaches, especially American New Criticism, for ignoring âwhat is objectively true about the activity of reading.â He claimed that his own approach was in contrast âtruly objectiveâ because it recognized the âfluidity ⊠of the meaning experienceâ and directed our attention âto where the action isâthe active and activating consciousness of the reader.â3
In a major reversal, Fish rejects these claims in âInterpreting the Variorumâ (1976), where he argues that all texts are in fact constituted by readersâ interpretive strategies and that the process he formerly claimed to describe is actually a creation of his critical theory: âWhat my principles direct me to âseeâ are readers performing acts; the points at which I find (or to be more precise, declare) those acts to have been performed become (by a sleight of hand) demarcations in the text; those demarcations are then available for the designation âformal features,â and as formal features they can be (illegitimately) assigned the responsibility for producing the interpretation which in fact produced them.â4 This radical revision of Fishâs theory has two consequences: a change in the relation of reader to text and a change in the relation of criticism to reading. Fish now claims that in reading the interpreter constitutes the text and that in reader criticism the interpreterâs description constitutes the nature of the reading process according to his interpretive strategies.
Fish has moved from a phenomenological emphasis (which describes the interdependence of reader and text) to a structuralist or even post-structuralist position (which studies the underlying systems that determine the production of textual meaning
and in which the individual reader and the constraining text lose their independent status). In his metacriticism, Fish has given up making descriptive claims for his earlier critical approach and abandoned its absolute priority over formalist criticism. He now views affective stylistics as only one of many possible interpretive strategies; it does not describe how all readers read but instead suggests one way they could read. Though Fish now holds it to be an act of persuasion rather than objective description, he continues to use his earlier approach when he does practical criticism. He therefore occupies two places on the schema of reader-response criticism shown in the chart.
This schema locates each critic on a continuum of reader-oriented approaches. A detailed examination of these approaches will reveal not only the interrelations among the critics placed here but also the problems within each of their reader-response theories. All five critics construct a theory consisting (in more or less detail) of an account of interpretation, a model for critical exchange, and a model of reading. These criticsâ theories of interpretation try to account for meaning-production in both reading and criticism. Their models of critical discussion specify the nature of critical procedures (observation, description, explication, and explanation) and the ways interpretations are exchanged in critical dialogue. These hermeneutic theories and critical models are based on models of reading, accounts of how readers actually interact with the text during the temporal reading process. Norman Hollandâs work provides a useful starting point for the following discussions of reader-response criticism because his writings carefully examine all three of these components making up a critical theory.5
Transactive Criticism
Hollandâs transactive criticism âtakes as its subject-matter, not the text in supposed isolation, as the New Criticism claimed it did, nor the self in rhapsody, as the old impressionistic criticism did, but the transaction between a reader and a text.â6 The notion of an âidentity themeâ is central to Hollandâs approach: âwe can be precise about individuality by conceiving of the individual as living out variations on an identity theme much as a musician might play out an infinity of variations on a single melody.â A person brings this âunchanging inner core of continuityâ to all transactions between Self and Other, including reading.7
Hollandâs model of reading proceeds from his more general theory of the relation between personality and perception. Perception is a âconstructive act,â not merely reflecting but forming reality: âthe individual apprehends the resources of reality (including language, his own body, space, time, etc.) as he relates to them in such a way that they replicate his identity.â8 That is, perception is also interpretation, and âinterpretation is a function of identity, specifically identity conceived as variations upon an identity theme.â Holland particularizes this view of perception in his central thesis about reading: identity re-creates itself. âAll of us, as we read, use the literary work to symbolize and finally to replicate ourselves. We work out through the text our own characteristic patterns of desire and adaptation.â9
Within this principle of identity re-creation, Holland isolates four specific modalities, which he conveniently organizes under the acronym DEFTâ-defenses, expectations, fantasies, and transformations. âOne can think of these four separate principles as emphases on one aspect or another of a single transaction: shaping an experience to fit oneâs identity and in doing so, (D) avoiding anxiety, (F) gratifying unconscious wishes, (E) absorbing the event as part of a sequence of events, and (T) shaping it with that sequence into a meaningful totality.â10 The concept of a âmeaningful totalityâ or unity is pivotal for Hollandâs reading model (and is equally important in his general theory of interpretation).11 According to Holland, the reader makes sense of the text by creating a meaningful unity out of its elements. Unity is not in the text but in the mind of a reader. âBy means of such adaptive structures as he has been able to match in the story, he will transform the fantasy content, which he has created from the materials of the story his defenses admitted, into some literary point or theme or interpretation.â12 For Holland, meaning is the result of this interpretive synthesis, the transformation of fantasy into a unity which the reader finds coherent and satisfying. As with all interpretation, âthe unity we find in literary texts is impregnated with the identity that finds that unity.â Each reader creates a unity for a text out of his own identity theme, and thus âeach will have different ways of making the text into an experience with a coherence and significance that satisfies.â13 Therefore, Hollandâs model of reading accounts exceptionally well for varied responses.
On the other hand, Hollandâs present theory has trouble with the phenomenon of similar responses. Similarity was easily explained by his earlier model. In The Dynamics of Literary Response (1968), he spoke as if âfantasies and their transformations were embodied in the literary work, as though the work itself acted like a mindâ; different readers could take in (âintrojectâ) the same text and âparticipateâ in whatever psychological process was embodied there. Accounting for recurrent responses has become much more difficult in Hollandâs revised model, in which âprocesses like the transformation of fantasy materials through defenses and adaptations take place in people, not in texts.â14 No longer embodying psychological processes, autonomous texts no longer serve as a guarantee of recurrence in Hollandâs present model of reading. Instead, similar identity themes must somehow account for similar response.15 This psychological explanation contrasts with Fishâs âsociologicalâ ones. In Fishâs earlier theory, all informed readers had the same basic reading experience because they shared linguistic and literary competence; in his present theory, communal reading strategies account for similar interpretive responses. The comparison between Fishâs and Hollandâs reading models becomes more complex when we examine the precise status of the text in their revised theories.16
Holland and Fish both claim that perception is a constructive act: we interpret a...