[the] ENGLISH-BLOG [.com]

Brooke King
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
13 February 2012
Q: Bleich sees the reader's response evolving by ____________ within a community of readers, and Rosenblatt focuses on the _______________ between the text and the reader.
A: negotiation, transaction (Lynn 70).
Q: "Real objects are physical objects, such as tables, chairs, cars, books, and the like. The printed pages of a literary text are real objects. However, the experience created when someone reads those printed pages, like language itself, is a symbolic object because it occurs not in a physical world but in the conceptual world, that is, the mind of the reader." What type of literary theory is being described and to whom is it attributed?
A: Subjective reader-response theory by David Bleich (Tyson 178).

Travis N. Rathbone
Dr. B. Lee Hobbs
ENG 435
12 February 2012

Reader Response Discussion Questions

Q: What assertion does “the house passage” help illustrate concerning reader-response theory?

A: Readers draw on their personal experiences to create meaning in (and from) the text (Tyson 172).

Q: According to Stanley Fish, what is an interpretive community?

A: An interpretive community is defined as a collection of readers who share interpretive strategies that are the result of institutional assumptions about literature (Tyson 185).

Question 1:
According to Bleich, “Every act of response reflects the shifting motivations and _____________ of the reader at the moment.”
Answer: PERCEPTIONS
(Lynn 69)
Question 2:
What is the terminology that this definition, according to Lynn, defines:
“discrete blocks of electronic text (or other media) networked together”
Answer: HYPERTEXTS
(Lynn 72)

Douglas Phillips
Dr. Hobbs
Critical Theory
13 February 2012

Q. What were some of the criticisms of New Criticism as outlined by Stephen Lynn?
A. New Criticism was detached from everyday reality, was outmoded, forced specific points of view on the author and the reader, and created the impression that literary study had no real-world value. From “Creating the Text” pg. 68:
New Criticism has seemed to some to encourage the divorce of literature from life and politics, indirectly reinforcing the status quo. By the standards of New Criticism, any literary work that takes a strong position ought somehow to acknowledge the opposing point of view… by assuming that literary language is fundamentally different from ordinary language, New Criticism may further tend to support the idea that literary study has little or no practical value but stands apart from real life… like an intellectual exercise (Lynn).

Q. According to Rivken and Ryan, “Aristotle noticed that a work of literature is as remarkable for its ________ as its _______” (Theory 128). (Hint: Reader Response vs. New Criticism: Plato)
A. “Aristotle noticed that a work of literature is as remarkable for its effects as its causes” (Theory 128).

Emmanuel Cruz
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
February 13, 2012
Questions
- According to transactional theorists, different readers come up with different interpretations of a text. Why can they come up with different interpretations if they are applying the same theory? A literary text allows for a range of acceptable meanings, that is, a range of meanings for which textual support is available. (174)
- Why is a text examined closely, often line by line? A text is examined closely, often line by line, in order to understand how (stylistics) it affects (affective) the reader in the process of reading. (175)

Q: According to Rivkin/Ryan, what receded in importance as a result of the development of science and more refined forms of mathematical logic? A: Rhetoric.

Q: According to Rivkin/Ryan, what did Positivism replace rhetoric with from its central place in the humanities in education with? A: The scientific method and the study of positive facts.

Tiffany Anne Carpenter
Dr. Hobbs
Eng 435- Literary Criticism
13 February 2012
Application 1: The Intentional Fallacy in Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby
William K. Wimsatt defines the intentional fallacy of a poet as examining what the poet “intended in” according to the “design or plan in the author’s mind…[and] the author’s attitude toward his word, the way he felt, [and] what made him write.” (4). The issue with this approach, Wimsatt and Beardsley argue, is that readers can never really know the true meaning behind the author’s intentions and are often confused by their focus on his intentions, rather than using the text itself for evidence and other critical examinations. Another key element, is that Wimsatt and Beardsley focus their argument on the work of poets because of the portrayal of their use of diction, etc. It becomes challenging, then, to apply an examination of the role of intentional fallacies in a work such as F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby because of the obvious difference in form, with Gastby’s elaborate prose. However, some similarities and connections can indeed be drawn between the two.
For example, examining the biography of Fitzgerald can provide insight into the reader’s understanding of the work, especially when making judgments about the various characters. As readers, we can make assumptions about Fitzgerald’s choices to establish Nick Carraway as an outside narrator who is looking in on the life of Tom, Daisy, the various people in East and West Egg, and especially Jay Gatsby. Nick acts as this unreliable narrator who comments on the inner-workings of those around him, guiding the reader to have certain perspectives on the characters, namely Gatsby.
If one were to attempt to apply the various techniques of evidence that Wimsatt and Beardsley point out, it would be difficult to establish them because of the type of novel that Fitzgerald creates with The Great Gatsby. For example, examining the role of public, internal, and intermediate evidence throughout the work rely only on Nick’s commentary of what is happening in Gatsby’s life and journey to establish himself in town and win Daisy over. The reader is only given limited perspectives and most of the evidence relies solely on the text itself, causing the reader to assume that Nick’s perceptions are those intended by Fitzgerald and thus personal to his motives as an author. Using the text itself, allusions can easily be examined, however, their intentions from the author are much more difficult to assess. In this respect, although The Great Gatsby is not a work of poetry that meets all of the standards that Wimsatt and Beardsley mention, it still can have certain aspects of the rules they point out regarding the intentionally fallacy by ensuring that the reader views the work from an internal standpoint of the text, finding connection with literary elements and evidence, rather than searching for the ambiguous intentions of the author.

Works Cited
Fitzgerald, F. Scott. The Great Gatsby. 1925. New York: Scribner, 1999. Print.
Wimsatt, William K. and Monroe C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Verbal Icon. 1954. Rpt. In The Critical Tradition: Classic Texts and Contemporary Trends. Ed. Daivd H. Richter. Boston: Bedford, 1998. 748-56. Print.

1. According to Rivkin/Ryan, what receded in importance as a result of the development of science and more refined forms of mathematical logic?
A: Rhetoric.

2. According to Rivken and Ryan, “Aristotle noticed that a work of literature is as remarkable for its ________ as its _______” (Hint: Reader Response vs. New Criticism: Plato)
“A: Aristotle noticed that a work of literature is as remarkable for its effects as its causes” (Rivken 128).

3. According to Rivkin/Ryan, what did Positivism replace rhetoric with from its central place in the humanities in education with?
A: The scientific method and the study of positive facts.

4. What were some of the criticisms of New Criticism as outlined by Stephen Lynn?
A. New Criticism was detached from everyday reality, was outmoded, forced specific points of view on the author and the reader, and created the impression that literary study had no real-world value. From “Creating the Text” pg. 68: New Criticism has seemed to some to encourage the divorce of literature from life and politics, indirectly reinforcing the status quo. By the standards of New Criticism, any literary work that takes a strong position ought somehow to acknowledge the opposing point of view… by assuming that literary language is fundamentally different from ordinary language, New Criticism may further tend to support the idea that literary study has little or no practical value but stands apart from real life… like an intellectual exercise (Lynn 68).

5. According to Bleich, “Every act of response reflects the shifting motivations and _____________ of the reader at the moment.”
Answer: PERCEPTIONS (Lynn 69)

6. What is the terminology that this definition, according to Lynn, defines:
“discrete blocks of electronic text (or other media) networked together”
Answer: HYPERTEXTS (Lynn 72)

7. Bleich sees the reader's response evolving by ____________ within a community of readers, and Rosenblatt focuses on the _______________ between the text and the reader.
A: negotiation, transaction (Lynn 70).

8. Q: What assertion does “the house passage” help illustrate concerning reader-response theory?
A: Readers draw on their personal experiences to create meaning in (and from) the text (Tyson 172).

9. According to transactional theorists, different readers come up with different interpretations of a text. Why can they come up with different interpretations if they are applying the same theory?
A: literary text allows for a range of acceptable meanings, that is, a range of meanings for which textual support is available. (Tyson 174)

10. Why is a text examined closely, often line by line?
A: A text is examined closely, often line by line, in order to understand how (stylistics) it affects (affective) the reader in the process of reading. (Tyson 175)

11. "Real objects are physical objects, such as tables, chairs, cars, books, and the like. The printed pages of a literary text are real objects. However, the experience created when someone reads those printed pages, like language itself, is a symbolic object because it occurs not in a physical world but in the conceptual world, that is, the mind of the reader." What type of literary theory is being described and to whom is it attributed?
A: Subjective reader-response theory by David Bleich (Tyson 178).

12. According to Stanley Fish, what is an interpretive community?
A: An interpretive community is defined as a collection of readers who share interpretive strategies that are the result of institutional assumptions about literature (Tyson 185).

Brooke King
Dr. Hobbs
ENG 435
15 February 2012
Harkin's The Reception of Reader-Response Theory
Harkin's main point that she begins with is why is Reader Response theory not widely used and that the historical evidence that surrounds the use of important Reader Response texts is a crucial to understanding why it is and is not well received in the English departments. What happened to Reader Response theory? Harkin states that the one answer could obviously be that Reader-response is a concept of obvious assumption used in cultural studies that has translated to other avenues of theory and performance within English studies. Since all reader have become commonplace, it is assumed that not everyone will come up with the same reading of a text. Harkin sites Holland as an example as to why during the mid-70's readers ascribed multiplicity amidst individual readings. While Harkin sites Fish's account of interpretive communities as a way to help explain how groups of people develop the same reading of a text. Harkin also sties Rosenblatt in order to explain why particular texts are cited and taken as primary use within English studies. She delves further by explaining the affect-the practice of a reader making meanings of a text. She argues that because this has become commonplace within academia, it has cease to become excited and has, as a result, become less favorable. However, what caused this? Harkin explains that the two movements of Reader-response, the boom in the late 70's that also encompassed many other theories and the movement that happened in the late 60's- early 70's influenced the change. These two movements that popularized the theory are charged with beating it like a dead horse until the theory no longer became exciting to use in scholastic English studies. In short, the theory become so common that it became easy to use and in academic market, the degree of difficulty equals with the aesthetic value in the academia. Basically, if the average person can understand it, then the theory no longer becomes academic. Harkin argues that when reader-response explained what happens when people read, it made reading easy and teachable, making reading no longer an art, but a commonplace value that everyone can obtain. This is the primary reason for the downfall of reader-response theory. Harkin also provides as answer as to why the theory fell: (1) the fear of change and (2) the fear of losing or not attaining professionalism within English Studies. While the fear restricted the number of people who are allowed to make such scholastic inquires into texts using this theory, it also allowed for the study of the effects of language on reader, which Fish uses for his studies. Thus, when academia began to use the theory widely to make teaching text easier, the scholastic side of the theory began to deteriorate in authenticity, making many scholastics weary about using it for scholarly inquiries. The use of the theory to help student write better rather than apply the theory lead to use its association with pedagogy. Many of the original theorist separated themselves from the pedagogical implications of the theory completely. As the pedagogical use of the theory became more prominent, young teachers sought to professionalize themselves by familiarizing with theories that most could not understand in order to strive for professionalism within the scholastic readership, losing the gap with which reader-response is suppose to be used. The shift in use has lead students to replace what the texts meaning is with what they believe the text is saying, displacing the language and form for which the text is given in. Harkin ends by saying that the only way to fix the problem that is plaguing the theory is that professors must be willing to teach the theory better .

Work Cited
Harkin, Patricia. "The Reception of Reader-Response Theory." College Composition and
Communication 56.3 (2005): 410-25. JSTOR. Web. 13 Feb. 2012.

Travis N. Rathbone
Dr. B. Lee Hobbs
ENG 435
15 February 2012

Reader Response Précis: “Towards a Transactional Theory of Reading”

In the essay “Towards a Transactional Theory of Reading,” Louise M. Rosenblatt elucidates her conception of reading as a transactional process. To begin, Rosenblatt defines several of key terms readily used within the Reader Response movement. Text is defined as a series of signs the reader interprets as linguistic symbols. In other words, the text is in reference to what is actually written on the page. Poem, on the other hand, designates the interaction—and the meaning derived therein—between the reader and the text. Rosenblatt warns against the proclivity of substituting the term author for the term reader and against believing the reader simply seeks to decode the poem as a hearer would. However, the end to which a reading ultimately derives is an interaction between the text and the reader. There is no other interaction in a reading. From here, Rosenblatt defines aesthetic and non-aesthetic processes of reading.

When reading with an aesthetic aim, the reader is conscious of his interaction with the text and is ultimately concerned with the quality and the outcome of this interplay. When engaged in this form of reading, no one other than the reader can interpret the work for him nor experience the substance produced. The “non-aesthetic” form of reading is one Rosenblatt describes as instrumental. Here, the reader does not have the same vested interest in the experience as he would if reading with an aesthetic purpose in mind. Instead, the primary goal of this form of reading is focused on what remains, what was learned, after the reader engages with the text (e.g. instructions to be followed, information to be gleaned, etc.).

After parsing the above definitions, Rosenblatt begins elucidating her transactional view of reading. A reader’s past experiences and present expectations coupled with the text’s verbal context impress meaning on the system of signs produced within a given work. This process gives rise to a new and unique experience with the text; ultimately, a wholly new product emerges. This encounter occurs because the reader interprets (or acts upon) the text, and the text elicits (or acts upon) a response from the reader. Adopting the terminology utilized by John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley, Rosenblatt considers this interaction between the text and the reader to be transactional in nature.

By virtue of the relationship to the text, a person becomes a reader; concordantly, the text becomes a poem by virtue of its relationship with the interpreter. The transaction that occurs between reader and text is an event that takes place at a specific point in the life of the reader, incorporating past experiences as well as present interests. Ultimately, the possibility remains that the printed marks on the page will be interpreted as alternate linguistic symbols by alternate readers; in this way, there is a potential that each interaction between reader and text will produce a unique and original experience that has never been constructed in the past and will never again come into being.

Work Cited
Rosenblatt, Louise M. “Towards a Transactional Theory of Reading.” Journal of Literacy
Research 1.1 (1969): 31-49. Sage Journals. Web. 15 February 2012.

Tiffany Anne Carpenter
Dr. Hobbs
Eng 435- Literary Criticism
15 February 2012
Précis 2: Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling by Fish
In “Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling,” Stanley Fish examines John Milton’s work, Paradise Lost, and attempts to examine the work from a reader-response approach by making a series of arguments which include that that Milton’s purpose is to “re-create in the mind of the reader the drama of the Fall” (195). He points out that “the disparity between intention and execution becomes a disparity between reader expectation and reading experience” (196). As a result, the reader is assumed to bring in their own notions, assumptions, and experiences into their reading and interpretation of the work. Fish goes on to argue that Milton is specifically engaging the reader and guiding the reader to focus on key elements, concepts, and even worries; drawing the reader into a state of confusion and uncertainty of whether or not they are able to, in fact, accurately read the poem. He explains that there is a sense of “deep distrust, [and] even fear, of verbal manipulation” in which the reader is forced to feel when thrown into the journey of Paradise Lost (197). To emphasize this tool used by Milton, Fish highlights that there are essential aspects of Paradise Lost that leave the reader confused, that highlight a “forgetfulness,” and a sense of ambiguity. Furthermore, the reader is drawn so much into the work by the form in which Milton portrays his tale of Adam and Eve that they are submersed as an active reader without a sense of time, reality, or even physical space and sensory details. Fish’s ultimate argument leads the reader to question whether or not they believe the workings of Satan and the Fall of Adam and Eve as portrayed by Milton and how well he does as an author to convince them of his possible intended messages. In addition, there is the overall question of whether or not Milton even had specific intentions for the reader because, as Fish points out, Milton’s focus seems to merely be on the poem itself, rather than the experience and knowledge that the reader would gain from having read it, especially if taken to the next level of meaning with the issues of sin, innocence, corruption, and if the reader has a choice in any of those matters at all.

Work Cited
Fish, Stanley. “Not so much a Teaching as an Intangling.” 1967. Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd Ed. Eds. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004. 195-216. Print.