Critical Approaches to Literature: (1) Author, Text, Reader

Approach	Meaning	Question	# Interps	Strategy	Benefits	Problems
Humanist Historical	Author	Who	One	Research	Certainty	Intentional Fallacy Subjective
Formalist	Text	What	One	Unify	Objectivity	Hidden assumptions
Reader Response	Reader	Who	Many	Ethnographic	Engagement	Anything goes
Rhetorical	Pathos/Ethos/ Logos	How	Many	Manipulate	Reader Awareness	Reductionist
Structuralist	Language	How	Unlimited	Linguistics	Intertextual Awareness	Literature secondary
Deconstructionist	Text	What not	Infinite	Invert	Freedom	Uncertainty
Gender	Gender	Who	Reduced	Invert	Empowerment	Limited
Psychological	Unconscious	How	Many	Invert	Insight	Reductionist
Political	Culture	All	Many	Invert	Empowerment	Prejudice
Marxist	Economic	How much	Reduced	Quantify and Rank	Political awareness	Reductionist
Religious	Holy texts	Who	Many	Structuralist	Focus	Fascism
New Historical	Documents Artifacts	All	Many	Research	Objectivity	Isms
Queer Theory	Community	Who	Many	Invert	Diversity	Isolation
Ecological	Environment	Where	Many	Invert	Global	Political

          

© Susanna Rich, 2020

          “The theme of the play…what Shakespeare is saying…this play is about…” All these ways of introducing an interpretation are fundamentally problematic.  “The” presumes that there is one best way to encounter a piece of literature.  Attributing intention to an author co-opts speakers’ rights.  Asserting what a play is about is to cut off other points of view.  All these ways of speaking are vestigial patriarchal forms of discourse to exert control over language and literature.  Individual voices and experiences are silenced. Much is at stake.

            In the 20^th century, there was a great, scientific surge of challenging this often-called Humanist/Historical critical approach to literature.  Theories now abound, revolutions are fought, diversity is fostered, and literature is regaining fans after centuries of elite control.

            The chart above encapsulates some major critical approaches, the focus creating meaning, the main question being asked—how generative the approach is in promoting multiple interpretations, and the predominant strategy for engaging with literature.  Benefits and problems are cited for each approach.

            To completely digest this chart is the work of many posts and wide discussions.  We’ll start here with a survey of the locus of meaning and the major modes of questioning for each: (1) Humanist/Historical; (2) Formalist; and (3) Reader/Response.

                           

            (1) The Humanist/Historical approach focuses on The Author, and asks the question Who wrote this? This perspective assumes that there is one interpretation, the one that the author purportedly consciously in mind when she wrote.  The post Intentional Fallacy: The Literary Séance https://becauseicanteach.blogspot.com/2019/02/intentional-fallacies-literary-seance.html considers this limited view of how meaning is made—and its severe limitations.  A corollary question is to consider the cultural milieu in which the author wrote as a source of meaning.  This can be an exciting exploration if it is done in the spirit of the New Historicists, where documents and artifacts are used to substantiate interpretations.  Unfortunately, the old Humanist/Historical approach may rely on projecting biased theories of what makes history.  With a process of selective attention and broad claims, old encrusted ways of thinking imbue and skew interpretation.  In short, it’s too subjective and promotes prejudices.

            (2) The Formalist approach, in the attempt to bring scientific objectivity into the interpretation of literature, focuses on The Text.  To do so, the Formalist avoids projecting intentions onto authors, and suspects general claims about history.  Instead, the focus is on the text, itself:  that solid, present thing in front of the eyes or at the fingertips:  What are the words? The dictionary and etymological entries on them? Their sonics? Their rhythms? The line endings for poetry? The punctuation? A whole new set of interpretive strategies emerged that enlivened and deepened literary interpretation—what came to be known as “close reading.” But many Formalists veered back to history by importing literary allusions into their operations—historical data. 

            (3) A third locus of meaning making is the The Reader, and this is where mid-Twentieth Century next turned.  Reader-Response theory is not an anything-goes invitation to veer off into a lengthy discussion about your grandmother’s scones, because the word “muffin” appeared in a poem.  Reader-Response theory studies how readers read.  For example, a Reader-Response researcher would present a group of ten-year old girls a particular poem, and also present the same poem to a group of ten-year old boys.  She would then compare the readers interpretations to discern whether there were gender biases at play.  Reader-Response theory often pairs with other critical approaches, as in the example above, which incorporates Gender Studies.  In a class in which Reader-Response is favored, your discussions will focus on differences in interpretation and what those differences say about readers’ diverse interests and concerns.

            In your literature classes, notice what source of meaning is favored: The Author, The Text, or The Reader.  Is there a blend of the three?  Which locus of meaning is most interesting and generative for you?

© Susanna Rich, 2020

Works Cited:

Cover Art: https://slideplayer.com/slide/7343415/

Because I Can Teach: https://becauseicanteach.blogspot.com/2019/02/intentional-fallacies-literary-seance.html