READER-
RESPONSE
CRITICISM
GROUP 1
MC LIT 7
THIS PRESENTATION CONTAINS
• BACKGROUND AND CONCEPT OF READER-
RESPONSE CRISTICISM
• TYPICAL QUESTION
• READING WORKS USING READER-RESPOSE
CRITICISM
• FIRE AND ICE BY ROBERT FROST
BACKGROUND
Reader-response criticism is a school of
literary theory that focuses on the reader
(or audience) and their experience of a
literary work, in contrast to other schools
and theories that focus attention
primarily on the author or the content
and form of the work.
LOUISE ROSENBLATT
Louise Michelle Rosenblatt was an American
university professor. She is best known as a
researcher into the teaching of literature.
Rosenblatt pioneered reader-response. It all
started with her book Literature as Exploration
in 1930s. That's the first work of literary
criticism that set out in detail a Reader-
Response perspective. Rosenblatt further
developed her theories in the late 70s
Reader-response critics believed that a reader’s
interaction with the text gives the text its meaning.
The text cannot exist without the reader.
Ex. If an apple fall off the tree and no ones there to
hear, did it even make a sound?
If a poem is written and no one is around to
read/critic, does the poem have meaning?
Reader’s life experiences and the
communities they belong to greatly influence
their reading of a text.
Because each reader will interact with the
text differently, the text may have more than
one valid interpretation.
A text can have different meaning, it depends
on how the reader interpret it and give
meaning to it.
MAIN CONCEPT
OF READER
RESONSE
THEORISTS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE
READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM STUDY
• LOIS TYSON
• LOUISE ROSENBLATT
• WOLFGANG ISER
• STANLEY FISH
• DAVID BLEICH
• NORMAN HOLLAND
Lois Tyson (2006) described in
Critical theories today the five
types of Reader-Response theories
and the difference that lie within
each.
TRANSACTIONAL READER-RESPONSE
THEORY – LED BY LOUIS ROSENBLATT
AND SUPPORTED BY WOLFGANG ISER
Involves a transaction between the text's
inferred meaning and the individual
interpretation by the reader influenced
by their personal emotions and
knowledge.
AFFECTIVE STYLISTICS –
STANLEY FISH
Believe that a text can only come into
existence as it is read; therefore, a text
cannot have meaning independent of
the reader.
SUBJECTIVE READER-RESPONSE
THEORY-DAVID BLEICH
Looks entirely to the reader's response
for literary meaning as individual
written responses to a text are then
compared to other individual
interpretations to find continuity of
meaning.
PSYCHOLOGICAL READER-RESPONSE-
NORMAN HOLLAND
Holand believes that a reader's
motives heavily affect how they
read, and subsequently use this
reading to analyze the psychological
response of the reader.
SOCIAL READER-RESPONSE
THEORY- STANLEY FISH
Social reader-response is Stanley
Fish's extension of his earlier work,
stating that any individual
interpretation of a text is created in
an interpretive community of minds
consisting of participants who share
a specific reading and interpretation
strategy.
TYPICAL QUESTIONS IN READER-
RESPONSE CRITICISM
• Who is the reader?
• What experiences, thoughts, or knowledge does the text
evoke?
• What aspect or characters of the text do you identify or
disidentify with, and how does this process of
identification affect your response to the text?
• What is the difference between your general reaction to
(e.g., like or dislike) and reader oriented interpretation
of the text?
FIRE AND ICE
By: ROBERT FROST
Some say the world will end in fire,
some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great and would suffice.
AND
ICE
By: Robert Frost
FIRE – self satisfaction, ICE – human hatred,
greediness, being impulsive indifference and being
and even brings us to worldly insensitive of others.
attachment which sooner or
later will result into human-
warfare or chaotic living.
Fire and Ice signified human traits. Fire which is more
unpleasant and could create huge destruction and Ice which
symbolizes much lighter trait yet could ruin numerous lives.
This is also the reason why the author quoted on the end that
for destruction ice is also great and would suffice, because both
(Fire, ice) have equal impact not just to the humanity but also
to the world.
Like/Dislike – The poem mirror the toxic traits of humans, it did not filter it
with sugar coated word but instead served directly its point, which I
personally like about it.
Agree/Disagree – I agree with the author that we humans (our toxic traits)
are most likely going to bring destruction to the world.
Identifying the reading’s purpose – For me, the purpose of the poem is to
show how destructive human’s toxicity really are, how could one’s trait
affect the society and make the world unpleasant.
A TEXT is worth a
thousand words
THAN
K
YOU!
