[the] ENGLISH-BLOG [.com]

Ava L.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
4 February 2009
Reading Check Questions on Reader Response
1. Reader-response theorists share two beliefs about reading literature. What are they?
A. The role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature.
B. Readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; they actively make the meaning they find in literature.
2. How does the purpose for which you are reading affect the way you read the text? Give an example.
A. The purpose for which the reader is reading the text affects the reader’s response because it determines which way the reader will approach reading the text. An example of this would be the example provided in the Tyson text, home buyer vs. burglar.
3. Name Norman Holland’s three stages or modes that occur and recur as we read. Provide a brief description of each mode.
A. Defense Mode- This mode involves the increase in our psychologically defenses while reading the text.
B. Fantasy Mode- During this mode the reader attempts to interpret the text in a way that allows him to tranquilize those defenses that were raised during the first mode.
C. Transformation Mode- During this mode the reader focus on the literary analysis of the text solely in order to prevent the onset of anxiety or emotional involvement.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. New York: Routledge, 2006. 169-190.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2/4/09

Short Answer/Discussion Questions

Q: Louise Rosenblatt created a theory that analyzes the transaction between the text and a reader. What is the name of this particular criticism?

A: Transactional Reader-Response

Q: Reader-response is such a broad literary critique, including readers’ ideas and experiences to interpret the text. Because of its wide scope, do other criticisms fall under this theory? If so, which ones and why?

A: Yes, all other theories can be considered a reader-response if the theory is applied to the reader himself.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
February 4, 2009

Reader response questions

What are the two beliefs that reader response theorists share?

According to Rosenblatt, two modes of interpretation exist. What are they and what do they mean?

What is resymbolization?

Cecilia B
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
4th February 2009

1. In reader-response theory, what is the difference between the efferent mode of reading and the aesthetic mode?
- The efferent mode focuses on the information presented within the text. For example, an efferent approach perceives the text as a “storehouse of facts and ideas” (Tyson 173). On the other hand, through the aesthetic mode, a reader can experience a symbiotic relationship with the text by directing attention to the emotion present within the language and how it relates to oneself and encourages judgment.

2. What is “interpretative community” in regards to social reader-response theory?
- According to Stanley Fish (creator of the term), interpretive community refers to the conscious or unconscious awareness of a reader that his interpretations are part of a community of attitudes and philosophies established by various institutions (“for example, in high schools, churches, and colleges” [Tyson 185]). These interpretations are subject to change depending upon the new environment in which a reader is placed.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today: A User Friendly Guide. 2nd Ed. New York:
Routledge, 2006.

Travis Rathbone
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
February 3, 2009

Reader-Response Discussion/Quiz Questions

Discussion Question:
When discussing Subjective reader-response theory, Tyson states that “readers’ responses are the text.” What does this statement mean?

There is no text beyond the meanings and interpretations that the readers place on it.

Quiz Question:
What is the difference between the efferent mode and the aesthetic mode?

When reading in efferent mode we focus on facts and ideas presented in the text. When reading in aesthetic mode we focus on the emotional subtleties the text’s language.

Sarah Tatko
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
4 February 2009
Reader Response Questions
Reading Check:
Q – What are the two beliefs of Reader Response theory?
A – The first is that the reader’s role can’t be taken out of one’s understanding of literature, and the second is that readers actively make the meaning they find in literature.

Discussion:
Q – Tyson claims that “a written text is not an object”, what does she mean by this?
A – The text is created within the reader because it is their response that creates the text.

Liz H

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

February 4, 2009

Reading Questions

1. Describe what the “identity theme’ found in psychological reader response means.

2. What is a flaw found in social reader response theory?

Liz H

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

February 4, 2009

Discussion Question

1. In the Tyson text, what is affective stylistics?

Ava L.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
9 February 2009

Precis of Reading Response Article: Corbett's Reason behind Figures of Speech

According to Edward P.J. Corbett, author of Classical Rhetoric, the use of figures of speech serves many purposes. Corbett asserts that figures of speech can be regarded as the “graces of language, dressing of thoughts, and embellishments” (Corbett 142). The use of figures “decorate and give style” (Corbett 142) to the prose. However, aside from the obvious, the use of figures can be a powerful tool at provoking emotion, attempting persuasion, revealing truth, and presenting credibility on the author’s behalf. They can also “increase our verbal resources” (Corbett 144). The two hundred or more figures of speech can be “classified into four categories: grammar, logos, pathos, and ethos” (Corbett 143). The categorizing of the figures of speech took place many years after using them had been into practice. In fact, Corbett asserts that “most students have been using some form of figures all of his life” (Corbett 143).

The term figures of speech imply “any deviation, either in thought or expression, from ordinary and simple method of speaking” (Corbett 143). Figures of speech can be divided into two groups, scheme and tropes. “Deviations in the ordinary pattern or arrangement of words” (Corbett 143) are termed as schemes. In contrast, tropes are “deviations from the ordinary and principal signification of a word” (Corbett 143). Both schemes and tropes involve some form of transference. The transference that occurs in a scheme affects “the order” (Corbett 143) while the transference in a trope affects “the meaning” (Corbett).

There are several forms of schemes including: “schemes of words, schemes of construction, schemes of unusual or inverted word order, schemes of omission, and schemes of repetition” (Corbett 144-53). Each subcategory of schemes serves a particular purpose in the use of rhetoric and grammar. Likewise, Tropes can also be subcategorized. “Metaphors and similes” (Corbett 153) are two subcategories of Tropes. These subcategories, like schemes, also serve a particular purpose in rhetoric and grammar. Schemes and tropes can be further divided into a variety of terms that are all aid in the makeup of figures of speech. Each part, whether by grouping or subcategorizing is an important part of using figures of speech.

Work Cited

Corbett, Edward P.J. “Classical Rhetoric”. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 142-61.

Sarah T.
Dr. Hobbs
Eng-435
9 February 2009

Précis: “Distinction” by Pierre Bourdieu

In 1979, Pierre Bourdieu wrote an article entitled “Distinction” which discusses the specifics of society and how it is classified. In doing this he applies these classifications to “taste” and how the different agents of society affect one’s taste. There is not a lot of focus on how classifications relate to the reading of literature but the brief explanation of taste reflects how it is relevant to literature because literature is a evaluated by taste.

According to Bourdieu it is the social classifications that develop and form one’s taste. Taste is to “differentiate and appreciate” an object (237). To break down further, this means that one must find distinctions between different objects and in the case of the reader response theory the object would be literature. Taste is a tool of social orientation which assists people in better understanding their proper social position. Social position and social classifications is what Bourdieu explores more in depth.

Social classifications are organized according to “habitus” which are the physical characteristics of a person and their way of life (Bourdieu 237). The habitus of an object is what creates its reality which is constructed of social schemes. Bourdieu lists common social themes and oppositions such as high, low, spiritual, material, fine, coarse, light, heavy, unique, common, brilliant, and dull. However, the most common opposition found in society is dominant and dominated; this is the basis and support of all the oppositions. It is important to understand these themes because they are the “qualifiers” of taste and when used in discourse (or literature) their meaning is created (Bourdieu 240).

The majority of the populations already understand the concept of the social order because it was taught to them by members of different classifications. An example provided is the “old” teaching the “young” and the young accepting what the old states because it is a pre-conceived notion of the classification that the old is wise. The classifications given to different objects, including people, creates their “social being” (Bourdieu 246). However, the classifications do not remain undisputed; in fact, they are constantly being fought over which helps to create new meanings, perceptions, and distinctions.

Work Cited

Bourdieu, Pierre. “Distinction.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 237-53.

Wesley J.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
February 8, 2009

Précis of “Interpretive Communities”

Stanley Fish’s article “Interpretive Communities” seeks to explain the nature and problems of reader interpretation regarding texts. Initially he separates the notions of reading and writing a text. While most people regard the process of examining a text “reading,” Stanley Fish establishes that this is not so. Rather, fitting in with the reader response chapter, Fish emphasizes that the job of the reader is to “write” a text. That is, any reader actually creates the text. Readers give the words on a page meaning. Therefore, the official goal of Fish’s article is to explore why interpretations across different readers vary or are stable.

Before he can explore the communities from which interpretations arise, he explores how reader interpretation imbeds itself. In that, Fish notes two situations regarding reader interpretations. There exists a proclivity for the same reader to examine and determine differences between two different texts. That is, he will not maintain the same interpretations. However, different readers evoke the same interpretations on the same text. Fish explains this variety or stability as interpretive strategies.

Therefore, everything is interpretation. And, these interpretations give a text its shape (this is “writing” the text). A reader develops interpretive strategies any number of ways. Fish’s article is a little sparse in the explanation of this process, but he does note that they are learned. Also, he notes that interpretation is a defining characteristic of humans. There does not exist a point at which interpretations are not had by humans. Rather, our interpretations shift over time and can be stabilized, shifted, or disregarded. And, it is at this point that Fish explores the notion of interpretive communities.

Basically, communities exist of readers with shared interpretive strategies. But, Fish fails to fully explore the nature of these communities. Fish notes that it used to be thought that the text had a specific “meaning.” Fish disregards this. However, he does agree that certain “meanings” are only understood by certain readers. That is, those who have a particular manner of interpretation (which is shared with the author) pick up on certain textual happenings. This is because the author and reader are in the same interpretive communities. But, this doesn’t mean that there is any less validity in the interpretations of readers outside of the author’s community. But, in the end of the article Fish relegates deep exploration of communities to a few short paragraphs.

Work Cited

Fish, Stanley. “Interpretive Communities.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 217-221.

Kristin B.

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

2/7/2009

Précis of “Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling”

Stanley Fish argued in the essay, “Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling” that John Milton manipulated his reader in Paradise Lost to emphasis morality. Fish stated that the poem’s center of reference and subject is the reader. Milton hoped to both educate and make aware the reader’s situation and responsibilities as a fallen man, and the poet hoped to reenact the fall within the mind of the reader and to remind the reader of Adam. Fish argued Milton deliberately used the reader’s response to Satan’s rhetoric to fall just as Adam did within Paradise Lost.

When the reader unavoidably succumbed to Satan’s rhetoric Fish stated the reader’s admiration for Satan’s language and style made the reader assent, lower his vigilance, and then the drama of Adam’s fall was recreated within the mind. Paradise Lost manipulated the reader’s responses. Milton not only told the story of Adam’s fall, but he also created the fall within the reader. Milton’s use of the “epic voice” created a pattern of allowing the reader to fall which lead the way to self knowledge within the reader (200). The poet then became the instructor, and the reader the pupil. Fish argued that the reader is taught to distrust his own perceptions; the hardest lesson of all.

The poet constantly corrected reader’s perceptions. Milton presented a “good temptation” by Satan’s rhetoric; which created a “split reader” because the reader responded to Milton’s poetic devices and the Christian doctrine (210-211). Fish declared that it created a discomfort within the reader in which he was consumed by sin and was unhappy with himself.

Work Cited

Fish, Stanley. “Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling.” Literary Theory: An Anthology 2nd ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. (City?), Massachusetts: Blackwell, 1998.
195- 216.

Travis Rathbone

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

February 9, 2009

Reader Response Précis: the “Transcendental Aesthetic”

In “Transcendental Aesthetic,” Kant discusses, among many things, how perception affects the interpretation of objects. He states that objects are not necessarily what we think of them as being but how they appear—to us through our interpretation—to be. Kant places quite a bit of import on perception and how it affects the object being viewed, even going so far as to say if the way we perceive an object ceases to exists, the object itself will no longer exist; the object is only viewable because it is being perceived. We do not know what objects can be or what qualities they can possess outside of our realm of perception. Therefore, one of the greatest concerns, then, should be understanding how one perceives. We only know our perception of objects and nothing else; we will never know what objects are outside of our own perception. Kant gives the example of rain drops being subjected to how we perceive them and are nothing but what we perceive. He also states that we cannot perceive a higher form, and there is a perfect (transcendent) object that cannot be known.

Kant employs a very specific vocabulary to define his arguments: Intuition (also defined as pure intuition or a priori knowledge) is knowledge we know to be inherently true from the onset without having to subject it to tests, whereas empirical intuition (also know as a posteriori knowledge) requires some thought or precursory knowledge of the object. A true object is inherent in its intuition, not just in its appearance. If we treat empirical intuition (knowledge that we obtain only through thought and precursory knowledge) as mere appearance, we run the risk of knowing something by appearance (what is on the surface of the object and nothing deeper) only and not truly knowing the object.

We can only know something through experience, not relations. Kant attributes relations to the inner-self as feelings, will, and knowledge. He states we only have an appearance of the inner-self or we have no inner-self at all. Kant also mentions we must have an idea of what something is before we can obtain that object. Thus, we have an idea of what the end goal is before we achieve it, and when we achieve it, the object is as it appeared to us (as we perceived it as being) before we achieved it and not as it truly is. He also states that objects are not illusions because there is something present. However, we should differentiate between an object’s appearance and its essence.

Work Cited

Kant, Immanuel. "Transcendental Aesthetic." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Edition.
Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 131-36.

Liz H.

Dr. Hobbs

ENG 435

February 8, 2009

Précis of “Text and System” by John Frow

John Frow presents his argument that text and works of literature have an interworking relationship in his essay, “Text and System” (1986). Throughout his article, he cites the classic examples of Don Quixote and The Iliad as texts upon which writers have made constant revisions. With each new century comes a new mode of thought and literary practice, and because of this, our literary style changes as well.

Frow focuses his argument on Cervantes’s Don Quixote and Homer’s The Iliad as classic examples of how, throughout the years, these works have changed subtly because of different literary systems and practices. Citing the work of critic Stanley Fish, Frow argues that there is a relationship between language and the dominant culture. Literature and culture work together in a relationship of mutual influence. Word choice, for example, is different in a Renaissance version of Don Quixote and a current one. As the reader reads, the text is transformed into something different, thus forming an intertextual relationship. However, Frow’s argument is much deeper than simply stating that works have changed throughout the years. Frow states that Don Quixote is not only a great work of literature; but it is also a complex mixture of the Spanish and English language available at that time. It serves as a cultural and linguistic landmark, of sorts. Language, by the author’s choice of words, becomes an economic system because the author has the ability to choose one word over another. Finally, for Frow, reading a text is not simply reading. One must continuously deconstruct what the text means by examining the text, the author, and the overall intent and pervading culture.

Frow’s article is relevant to our studies, especially because he attempts to ascertain the importance of the relationship between the reader and his text. His examples are well-known, which helps in our ability to understand his argument in the midst of something overwhelming verbose.

Work Cited

Frow, John. "Text and System." Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Edition. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 222-36.

Cecilia B
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
10th February 2009
Précis of Robert Lanham’s “Tacit Persuasion Patterns”
In his article on the implied rhetorical effects of prose patterns, Robert Lanham explores how various linguistic schemes contribute to a reader’s persuasion. Lanham defends that readers are naturally drawn to symmetry in language by correlating patterns to implicit logic; clichés, for example, become overused because of their attractiveness to logical control. Additionally, Lanham evaluates such linguistic techniques like repetition, alliteration, chiasmus, isocolon, and anaphora to prove his claims and especially borrows recognized political aphorisms from Winston Churchill, John F. Kennedy, and the Declaration of Independence for support. Chiasmus, Lanham states, is “X-form logic” (181) because it presents antithetical principles in an ABBA pattern (reversed phrasing) explicated by Kennedy’s “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country” (180). However, Lanham notes that inversion is not the only structure which is appealing. Isocolon, he illustrates, are phrases of equal length and corresponding structure which employs the ABAB design scheme as in “Let not thy will roar when thy power can but whisper” (182). Anaphora, on the other hand, has a similar opening pattern which is used to build a straightforward climax: “We shall…we shall…we shall” (Chrurchill qtd. in Lanham 183). What’s more, lists offer the same clear-cut climax and tacit logic that can be accepted and followed once read. Such is the case with the catalogued statements made in the Declaration of Independence. At the close of his article, Lanham also supplies a “Brief Glossary of Rhetorical Terms” which contains such words as ethopoeia, paramologia, and zeugma to further provide linguistic patterns.

Lanham, Robert. “Tacit Persuasion Patterns.” Literary Theory: An
Anthology. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. New York: Blackwell
Pub., 1998. 177-194.

Jessica P.
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
2/8/09

Précis: How to Do Things with Words

J.L Austin, a 20th century philosopher, states that language is made up of performative utterances, in which people do not merely say something but act on it. Not describing, reporting, or being true or false, an utterance of a sentence is the doing of an action. However, it is necessary that the circumstances in which the words are uttered are appropriate. In his article, How to Do Things With Words, Austin states that in no case does one say that the utterance was false but rather that the promise was invalid.

Under appropriate circumstances, performative utterances cannot be true or false; however, the doctrine of infelicities states that things can be and do go wrong. Austin describes six infelicities which affect utterances. Rules A.1 and A.2 focus on the accepted procedure of the utterance, where with appropriate application the conditions must be conventional with specific words being said by certain persons in particular circumstances. B.1 and B.2 state that the utterance must be completed by the participant both correctly and completely. Finally, I.1 and I.2 state that the situation must be correct for a participant with certain thoughts, ideas, and feelings where everyone appropriately conduct themselves.

Utterances cannot be true or false, but if the six rules presented are broken, then the utterances transcend into an unhappy state. Austin states that all conventional acts are subject to infelicity with exception for extenuating circumstances. To further distinguish between the A and B rules, the terms misinvocation and misapplication are applied to the A rules and misexecutions is applied to the B rules.

Austin, J. L. “How to do things with Words”. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 162-176.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
10 February 2009
Interpretive Communities within Oz
Victor Fleming’s The Wizard of Oz contains much of the arguments from Stanley Fish’s article “Interpretive Communities.” Specifically, Fish’s notion of stratification between humans (as interpreters) is illuminated within Oz. That is, a text, or in the case of The Wizard of OZ, the world of the characters, is created by a set of interpretations (Fish 218). And, those interpretations can be drastically separatist for human beings if they are not shared. Therefore, within the Wizard of Oz, the shared or unshared interpretations of characters illustrate Stanley Fish’s portrait of the significance of interpretations.
However, before one examines the communities of interpretation at play within Oz, it is easier to note the interpretations and strategies behind them that support the communities presented by the film. To begin simply, one need only examine the names of characters within Fleming’s film to see evidence of interpretation. Most notably, the names the Wicked Witch of the West, Glenda the Good Witch, and the powerful Oz are interpretations held by citizens. Noting the range of interpretations these names evoke furthers the implications of the titles as interpretations. For example, the notion of the green witch as being “wicked” is in itself neutral. That is, wicked is a word which I (or the characters in the film) have supplied the meaning for (Gregory Maguire this in the novel Wicked). Similarly, Glenda’s good status is only existent because it is prescribed by the inhabitants of Oz. One could easily view these titles as not meaning anything; and, especially in an altered universe like Oz, one might expect this. Therefore, interpretations provide meaning. That is, interpretations provide the view one takes of things (Fish 219). These interpretations can be shaped any number of ways. Perhaps one developed that the green witch was wicked from her propensity for fleshy discoloration. Or, as is the case with Dorothy’s line “There’s no place like home” (Fleming), one could even have learned interpretations from family.
Interpretive communities arise when groups of individuals agree on a similar interpretation. In The Wizard of Oz, this is an explanation for the regard that the Wicked Witch receives. She is what her name implies because the city has warranted it such. If wicked were simply part of her name it obviously wouldn’t have a negative connotation. Again, the characters’ names are such because society within the film has provided it. From this notion, an interesting interpretive community arises out of the film involving the viewer. Because the viewer and characters within the film operate on the same notion of language (a shared set of interpretations itself), the reader is in a community of interpretation with the citizens of Oz. Arising from our understanding of titles like wicked, good, or powerful, the viewer shares in the interpretations of the Ozians.
“Interpretive communities” is not an article that pinpoints explicit literary conventions. Rather, it is an abstract system of development and understanding. Virtually everything that occurs in Fleming’s film can be examined as having been developed by interpretive communities. Even the fact that the movie was actually created warrants examination with this community notion in mind (produces, directors, and film-goers had to all agree that The Wizard of Oz was worth making or viewing). Therefore, the interpretive communities as exemplified by Fleming’s work should illustrate that in all literature, everything is interpretation. Nothing is concretely developed for the reader. Rather, the reader (or viewer) creates the text on his own accord.

Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “Interpretive Communities.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 218-221
The Wizard of Oz. Dir. Victor Fleming. Perf. Judy Garland. MGM, 1939.

Dr. Hobbs,
I don't remember if I already attempted to post this. So, here it is again.

Wesley Johnson
Hobbs
Eng 435
10 February 2009
Interpretive Communities within Oz
Victor Fleming’s The Wizard of Oz contains much of the arguments from Stanley Fish’s article “Interpretive Communities.” Specifically, Fish’s notion of stratification between humans (as interpreters) is illuminated within Oz. That is, a text, or in the case of The Wizard of OZ, the world of the characters, is created by a set of interpretations (Fish 218). And, those interpretations can be drastically separatist for human beings if they are not shared. Therefore, within the Wizard of Oz, the shared or unshared interpretations of characters illustrate Stanley Fish’s portrait of the significance of interpretations.
However, before one examines the communities of interpretation at play within Oz, it is easier to note the interpretations and strategies behind them that support the communities presented by the film. To begin simply, one need only examine the names of characters within Fleming’s film to see evidence of interpretation. Most notably, the names the Wicked Witch of the West, Glenda the Good Witch, and the powerful Oz are interpretations held by citizens. Noting the range of interpretations these names evoke furthers the implications of the titles as interpretations. For example, the notion of the green witch as being “wicked” is in itself neutral. That is, wicked is a word which I (or the characters in the film) have supplied the meaning for (Gregory Maguire this in the novel Wicked). Similarly, Glenda’s good status is only existent because it is prescribed by the inhabitants of Oz. One could easily view these titles as not meaning anything; and, especially in an altered universe like Oz, one might expect this. Therefore, interpretations provide meaning. That is, interpretations provide the view one takes of things (Fish 219). These interpretations can be shaped any number of ways. Perhaps one developed that the green witch was wicked from her propensity for fleshy discoloration. Or, as is the case with Dorothy’s line “There’s no place like home” (Fleming), one could even have learned interpretations from family.
Interpretive communities arise when groups of individuals agree on a similar interpretation. In The Wizard of Oz, this is an explanation for the regard that the Wicked Witch receives. She is what her name implies because the city has warranted it such. If wicked were simply part of her name it obviously wouldn’t have a negative connotation. Again, the characters’ names are such because society within the film has provided it. From this notion, an interesting interpretive community arises out of the film involving the viewer. Because the viewer and characters within the film operate on the same notion of language (a shared set of interpretations itself), the reader is in a community of interpretation with the citizens of Oz. Arising from our understanding of titles like wicked, good, or powerful, the viewer shares in the interpretations of the Ozians.
“Interpretive communities” is not an article that pinpoints explicit literary conventions. Rather, it is an abstract system of development and understanding. Virtually everything that occurs in Fleming’s film can be examined as having been developed by interpretive communities. Even the fact that the movie was actually created warrants examination with this community notion in mind (produces, directors, and film-goers had to all agree that The Wizard of Oz was worth making or viewing). Therefore, the interpretive communities as exemplified by Fleming’s work should illustrate that in all literature, everything is interpretation. Nothing is concretely developed for the reader. Rather, the reader (or viewer) creates the text on his own accord.

Works Cited
Fish, Stanley. “Interpretive Communities.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 218-221
The Wizard of Oz. Dir. Victor Fleming. Perf. Judy Garland. MGM, 1939.