Saturday, February 29, 2020

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New Historical
Documents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 20th 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.
                           Image result for author text reader

            (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/


No comments:

Post a Comment