Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:27:34.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Other reader-oriented theories

from READER-ORIENTED THEORIES OF INTERPRETATION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

By
Peter J. Rabinowitz
Edited by
Raman Selden
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is by now commonplace to point out that unlike such tightly organized schools as structuralism or Marxism, reader-oriented criticism, taking its major forms up until around 1990, is neither united by a common methodology nor directed toward a common goal. As Susan Suleiman notes, it ‘is not one field but many, not a single widely trodden path but a multiplicity of crisscrossing, often divergent tracks’ (‘Varieties of audience-oriented criticism’, p. 6).

Jane Tompkins, it is true, argues, in the introduction to her influential anthology, that there has been a ‘coherent progression’ from formalism to the belief that ‘reading and writing … [are] two names for the same activity’ (‘Introduction’, p. ix). But while this description accurately charts the trajectory of Stanley Fish, reader-oriented criticism as a whole exhibits little historical progression and offers little sense of ultimate arrival. Indeed, there does not even seem to be a common point of origin for the divergent tracks. Even Steven Mailloux's general claim that reader-response critics ‘all share the phenomenological assumption that it is impossible to separate perceiver from perceived, subject from object’ would seem to exclude such important figures as Wayne Booth (Interpretive Conventions, p. 20).

Reader-oriented critics seem at one in their opposition to certain traditional formalist practices – especially, in the United States, to the decontextualization demanded by New Criticism. This hostility to New Criticism, however, is common to most other contemporary theorists as well. Moreover, even if there seems to be a single subject of inquiry ('the reader'), the term, as we shall see, takes on so many different meanings in current discourse that it serves less as a unifying banner than as a trophy to be wrested from the opposition.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism , pp. 375 - 403
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, M. H., ‘How to do things with texts’, Partisan Review, 46 (1979).Google Scholar
Bleich, David, Readings and Feelings: An Introduction to Subjective Criticism (Providence,IL, 1975).Google Scholar
Bloom, Edward (ed.), ‘In defense of authors and readers: a discussion by Wayne Booth, Wolfgang Iser, et al.’, Novel, 11 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Stephen, ‘On the value of Hamlet’, in Rabkin, Norman (ed.), Reinterpretations of Elizabethan Drama: Selected Papers from the English Institute (New York, 1969).Google Scholar
Booth, Stephen, An Essay on Shakespeare's Sonnets (New Haven, 1969).Google Scholar
Booth, Wayne C., The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago, 1961; 2nd ed., 1983).Google Scholar
Booth, WayneA Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago, 1974).Google Scholar
Booth, WayneCritical Understanding: The Powers and Limits of Pluralism (Chicago, 1979).Google Scholar
Booth, WayneThe Company We Keep: An Ethics of Fiction (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1988).Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth, ‘Psychology and form’ (1924), in Counter-Statement (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1968).Google Scholar
Bush, Douglas, ‘Professor Fish on the Milton Variorum’, Critical Inquiry, 3 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crews, Frederick, ‘Criticism without constraint’, Commentary, 73 (January 1982).Google Scholar
Crews, Frederick, ‘Reductionism and its discontents’, Critical Inquiry, 1 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosman, Robert, ‘Do readers make meaning?’, in Suleiman, Susan R. and Wimmers, Inge Crosman (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
Crosman, Robert, ‘How readers make meaning,’ College Literature, 9 (1982).Google Scholar
Crosman, Robert, ‘Some doubts about the reader of Paradise Lost’, College English, 37 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crosman, Robert, Reading Paradise Lost (Bloomington, IN, 1980).Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism (Ithaca, 1982).Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan, Structuralist Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Study of Literature (Ithaca, 1975).Google Scholar
Culler, Jonathan, The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction (Ithaca, 1981).Google Scholar
Davis, Walter A., ‘The Fisher King: Wille zur Macht in Baltimore,’ Critical Inquiry, 10 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, Walter ‘Offending the profession (after Peter Handke)’, Critical Inquiry, 10 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeMaria, Robert Jr., ‘The ideal reader: a critical fiction’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 93 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagleton, Terry, ‘The revolt of the reader’, in Against the Grain: Essays 1975–1985 (London, 1986).Google Scholar
Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory: An Introduction (Minneapolis, 1983).Google Scholar
Eco, Umberto, The Role of the Reader: Explorations in the Semiotics of Texts (Bloomington, 1979).Google Scholar
Fetterley, Judith, ‘Reading about reading: “A Jury of Her Peers”, “The Murders in the Rue Morgue”, and “The Yellow Wallpaper'”, in Flynn, Elizabeth A. and Schweickart, Patrocinio P. (eds.), Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts (Baltimore, 1986).Google Scholar
Fetterley, Judith, The Resisting Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction (Bloomington, 1978).Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘Whyx no one's afraid of Wolfgang Iser,’ Diacritics, 11 (Spring, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘Anti-professionalism’, New Literary History, 17 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘Pragmatism and literary theory I: consequences’, Critical Inquiry, 11 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘Profession despise thyself: fear and self-loathing in literary studies’, Critical Inquiry, 10 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘With the compliments of the author: reflections on Austin and Derrida’, Critical Inquiry, 8 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, *‘Working on the chain gang: interpretation in the law and in literary criticism’, Critical Inquiry, 9 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, ‘Fear of Fish: a reply to Walter Davis’, Critical Inquiry, 10 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, ‘No bias, no merit: the case against blind submission’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 103 (1988).Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley, Doing What Come Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham, NC, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fish, Stanley, Is There a Text in This Class?: The Authority of Interpretive Communities (Cambridge, MA, 1980).Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley, Self-Consuming Artifacts: The Experience of Seventeenth-Century Literature (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1972).Google Scholar
Fish, Stanley, Surprised by Sin: The Reader in Paradise Lost (New York, 1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, Elizabethand, A.Schweickart, Patrocinio P. (eds.), Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts (Baltimore, 1986).Google Scholar
Foley, Barbara, Telling the Truth: The Theory and Practice of Documentary Fiction (Ithaca, 1986).Google Scholar
Freund, Elizabeth, The Return of the Reader: Reader-Response Criticism (London, 1987).Google Scholar
Gibson, Walker, ‘Authors, speakers, readers, and mock readers’, College English 11 (1950); rpt. in Tompkins, Jane (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graff, Gerald, ‘Culture and anarchy’, review of Is There a Text in this Class? by Fish, Stanley, New Republic, 184 (14 February, 1981).Google Scholar
Graff, Gerald, ‘Narrative and the unofficial interpretive culture’, in Phelan, James (ed.), Reading Narrative: Form, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus, OH, 1989).Google Scholar
Graff, Gerald, Literature Against Itself: Literary Ideas in Modern Society (Chicago, 1979).Google Scholar
Hirsch, David H., ‘Penelope's web’, Sewanee Review, 90 (January 1982).Google Scholar
Holland, Norman N., The Dynamics of Literary Response (New York, 1968).Google Scholar
Holland, Norman ‘Recovering “The Purloined Letter”: reading as a personal transaction’, in Suleiman, Susan R. and Wimmers, Inge Crosman (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
Holland, Norman ‘The miller's wife and the professors: questions about the transactive theory of reading’, New Literary History, 17 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Norman ‘Unity Identity Text Self’, Publications of the Modern Language Association, 90 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Norman ‘Why Ellen laughed’, Critical Inquiry, 7 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Norman5 Readers Reading (New Haven, 1975).Google Scholar
Holland, NormanLaughing (Ithaca, 1982).Google Scholar
Holland, NormanPoems in Persons: An Introduction to the Psychoanalysis of Literature (New York, 1975).Google Scholar
Holland, NormanThe I (New Haven, 1985).Google Scholar
,Introduction: varieties of audience-oriented criticism’, in Suleiman, Susan R. and Crosman, Inge (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iser, Wolfgang, ‘Talking like whales: a reply to Stanley Fish’, Diacritics, 11 (1981).Google Scholar
Jacobus, Mary, Reading Woman: Essays in Feminist Criticism (New York, 1986).Google Scholar
Jameson, Fredric, The Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Symbolic Act (Ithaca, 1981).Google Scholar
Kennard, Jean E., ‘Ourself behind ourself: a theory for lesbian readers’, in Flynn, Elizabeth A. and Schweickart, Patrocinio P. (eds.), Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts (Baltimore, 1986).Google Scholar
Kincaid, James R., ‘Coherent readers, incoherent texts’, Critical Inquiry 3 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knapp, Steven and Michaels, Walter Benn, ‘Against theory’, Critical Inquiry, 8 (1982); rpt. in Mitchell, W.J. T. (ed.), Against Theory (Chicago, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, Annette, ‘A map for rereading: or, gender and the interpretation of literary texts,’ New Literary History, 11 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolodny, Annette, ‘Dancing through the minefield: some observations on the theory, practice, and politics of a feminist literary criticism,’ Feminist Studies, 6 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, Roberta, ‘Reading the Yvain/Charrette: Chretien's inscribed audiences at Noauz and Pesme Aventure’, Forum for Modern Language Studies, 19, no. 2 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailloux, Steven, ‘Convention and context’, New Literary History, 14 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailloux, Steven, ‘Rhetorical hermeneutics’, Critical Inquiry, 11 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mailloux, Steven, Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction (Ithaca, 1982).Google Scholar
Mailloux, Steven, Rhetorical Power (Ithaca, 1989).Google Scholar
Miller, Robin Feuer, Dostoevsky and The Idiot: Author, Narrator, and Reader (Providence, MA, 1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morson, Gary Saul, The Boundaries of Genre: Dostoevsky's Diary of a Writer and the Traditions of Literary Utopia (Austin, 1981).Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher, ‘Teleology and taxonomy in critical explanation’, Bucknell Review, 26, no. 1 (1981).Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher, ‘Tntersubjective reading’, New Literary History, 17 (1986).Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher, Subjective Criticism (Baltimore, 1978).Google Scholar
Norris, Christopher, The Double Perspective: Language, Literacy, and Social Relations (Oxford, 1988).Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. S. J., ‘The writer's audience is always a fiction,’ Publications of the Modern Language Association, 90 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pedrick, Victoria, and Rabinowitz, Nancy Sorkin (eds.), Audience Oriented Criticism and the Classics, Special Issue of Arethusa, 19, no. 2 (1986).Google Scholar
Phelan, James, Reading People, Reading Plots: Character, Progression, and the Interpretation of Narrative (Chicago, 1989).Google Scholar
Phelan, James (ed.), Reading Narrative: Form, Ethics, Ideology (Columbus, OH, 1989).Google Scholar
Pratt, Mary Louise, ‘Interpretive strategies/strategic interpretations: on Anglo-American reader response criticism,’ Boundary 2, 11 (1981/1982).Google Scholar
Preston, John, The Created Self: The Reader's Role in Eighteenth-Century Fiction (London, 1970).Google Scholar
Prince, Gerald, ‘Introduction à l'étude du narrataire,’ Poetique no. 14 (1973); rpt. as ‘Introduction to the Study of the Narratee’, trans. Marineer, Francis, in Tompkins, Jane (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore, 1980).Google Scholar
Prince, Gerald, ‘Notes on the text as reader’, in Suleiman, Susan R. and Crosman, Inge (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
Prince, Gerald, Narratology: The Form and Functioning of Narrative (Berlin, 1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Profitt, Edward, review of Is There a Text in This Class? by Fish, Stanley, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 17 (1983).
Rabinowitz, Peter J., ‘Truth in fiction: a reexamination of audiences’, Critical Inquiry, 4 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, Peter ‘"What's Hecuba to Us?: the audience's experience of literary borrowing,’ in Suleiman, Susan R. and Crosman, Inge (eds.), The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, Peter ‘Circumstantial evidence: musical analysis and theories of reading’, Mosaic, 18, no. 4 (1985).Google Scholar
Rabinowitz, PeterBefore Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation (Ithaca, 1987).Google Scholar
Radway, Janice, Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Literature (Chapel Hill, 1984).Google Scholar
Lauretis, Teresa, ‘Review of An Introduction to Literary Semiotics by Maria Cort and The Role of the Reader by Umberto Eco’, Clio, 10 (1980).Google Scholar
Riffaterre, Michael, Semiotics of Poetry (Bloomington, 1978).Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, Louis M., Literature as Exploration (New York, 1938).Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, LouisThe Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Providence, IL, 1978).Google Scholar
Schauber, Ellen and Spolsky, Ellen, ‘Reader, language, and character’, Bucknell Review, 26, no. 1 (1981).Google Scholar
Schweickart, Patrocinio P., ‘Reading ourselves: toward a feminist theory of reading,’ in Flynn, Elizabeth A. and Schweickart, Patrocinio P. (eds.), Gender and Reading: Essays on Readers, Texts, and Contexts (Baltimore, 1986).Google Scholar
Shechner, Mark, review of Subjective Criticism by Bleich, David, Criticism, 21 (1979).
Slatoff, Walter, With Respect to Readers: Dimensions of Literary Response (Ithaca, 1970).Google Scholar
Sosnocki, James Joseph, review of Fish et al, Modern Fiction Studies, 27 (1981).
Steig, Michael, Stories of Reading: Subjectivity and Literary Understanding (Baltimore, 1989).Google Scholar
Suleiman, Susan R., ‘Reading Robbe-Grillet: sadism and text in Projet pour une revolution à New York’, Romanic Review, 68 (1977).Google Scholar
Suleiman, Susan ‘Redundancy and the “readable” text’, Poetics Today, 1 (1979).Google Scholar
Suleiman, Susan, R. and Crosman, Inge, eds., The Reader in the Text: Essays on Audience and Interpretation (Princeton, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, Jane P., ‘An introduction to reader-response criticism’, in Tompkins, Jane P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore, 1980), pp. ix–xxvi.Google Scholar
Tompkins, JaneSensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction 1790–1860 (New York, 1985).Google Scholar
Tompkins, Jane P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (Baltimore, 1980).Google Scholar
Warhol, Robyn R., Gendered Interventions: Narrative Discourse in the Victorian Novel (New Brunswick, 1989).Google Scholar
Weber, Samuel, ‘The debt of criticism: notes on Stanley Fish's Is There a Text in This Class?’, in Institution and Interpretation [Theory and History of Literature, Volume 31] (Minneapolis, 1987).Google Scholar
Wimmers, Inge Crosman, Poetics of Reading: Approaches to the Novel (Princeton, 1988).Google Scholar
Wollheim, Richard, ‘The professor knows’, Review of Is There a Text in This Class? by Fish, Stanley, New York Review of Books, 28 (17 December 1981).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×