Reader/Response

In our discussion on Chapter 4 of Interdisciplinarity today, we discussed the relationships between history and literary criticism as academic disciplines. In particular, we talked about the importance of context in being able to closely read a piece–in other words, it is important to understand the life and times of the author, so that we may have a better understand of what they may have meant by their prose/poetry, and/or what universal themes or truths they were attempting to discuss. After all, what’s the point of literary criticism and analysis other than to discover an author’s one true intention, right?

…Right?

No, not right. While this line of thinking–taking the context of an author’s experience into account and using to spearhead analysis–can be useful, it often leads to a point where there is only one “acceptable” interpretation of a work.

Does the context of a piece necessarily have to affect one’s views of it or its meaning? Does individual thought have a place in academic thinking–particularly literary criticism? Can we allow our subjective experiences to inform our interpretations of art?

Reader-response theory is a school of literary criticism that began in the 1960s and 1970s, which argues that the experience of the reader (or audience) should be considered as the main factor when interpreting a work. This theory states that without a reader, a work has no meaning, and therefore readers are the most important factors in a text’s existence. This line of thinking stands in direct opposition to New Criticism, which argues that the only factors that should be taken into account when interpreting a text are those within the text itself.

In 1967, noted reader-response theorist Roland Barthes published La mort de l’auteur (“The Death of the Author”). In this essay, he argued against the traditional practice of incorporating the intentions/historical context of an author into an interpretation of a text, instead saying that a creator’s intentions and his/her text are wholly unrelated. In simpler terms:

Books are meant to be read, not written, and so the ways readers interpret them are more important and “real” than the ways writers write them.

-TV Tropes, “Death of the Author”

This often comes into play when discussing music. How many times have you come across a song that everyone seems to have a different interpretation of? Look at the Beatles’ famous “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.” Although Lennon and McCartney have gone down in history repeatedly claiming that the song was inspired by the Alice in Wonderland series, intrepid listeners have bent over backwards to justify the song’s references to illicit drug use. Reader-response theory comes about in other studies, such as religion, as well. Many Protestant denominations of Christianity (Episcopalianism in particular) often encourage their followers to form their own personal interpretation of the Bible, and follow it as they see fit.

In addition to Reader-response theory, we must also recognize that discovering an author’s context does not necessarily lead to a perfect interpretation of their work–humans are unique and evolving creatures, so to say that you can figure out an author’s mindset by figuring out their “context” is ludicrous.

For an example of this, let’s look to two musicians: Adam Young (better known by his stage name, Owl City) and Reese Roper (lead singer of Five Iron Frenzy, Roper, and Brave Saint Saturn). At first glance, the two seem to have quite a bit in common. They both:

  • Were born and raised in the American midwest
  • Grew up in the same basic era (Young was born in 1986, Reese in 1973)
  • Both have a background in Protestant theology
  • Both have a background in rock music
  • Both white, heterosexual males
  • Both use their music to speak about Christian themes

In addition, both artists have a song entitled “Fireflies,” which use the titular insect as a symbol to discuss a philosophical concept. If we are to assume that biographical context must inform our interpretation of a work, then will assume that both songs use that symbology in similar ways.

And yet, they don’t. In Adam Young’s “Fireflies,” the insect is used as a metaphor for childhood innocence–throughout the song, he discusses the sadness he feels knowing that he will one day have to let them go. And yet, he finds joy in knowing that by allowing his imagination to run free, and keeping hope for a better tomorrow, he will still be able to remember the happiness he once felt.

Roper’s “Fireflies,” however, uses the insects as a symbol of sin. To Roper, “fireflies” are icons and objects that distract us from God, and lead us into sin; they are no more than “fading lies”. As he sings:

Far too easily distracted by this wretched curse
I’m enticed and so attracted
Bait and trap me, perhaps worse
Jade brilliance, emerald lies
Each glimmer must fade and die
This gift of sight
This glorious blight

-Roper, “Fireflies”

Here, context does not seem to matter–these are two different human beings, and thus their individual, personal experiences influence their interpretation of a common symbol, and thus their art as a whole.

While it can be important to learn the biographical context behind an author’s work, we must not forget about the reader. Art is entirely subjective–and thus, we must be wary about trying to view it through an objective lense.

2 Replies to “Reader/Response”

  1. I think i’m sort of forced to take a middle ground when it comes to interpreting works with knowledge of the writer. I’m not saying it’s vital to try to explain away the reasons for things in books by the life of an author, nothing ever works out that cleanly. Knowledge can inhibit a scope of readings as well, in NourbeSe Philip’s “Zong!”, which is authored by Philip, she includes on the cover that it was told to her by a fictional Sataey Adamu Boateng. Nourbese also obscures her first name, making her gender more difficult to determine. By doing this she subverts any sort of expectation to have a personal connection to the failed slave ship, but also influences in how the work is read. If we knew Nourbese as a transnational lesbian feminist, that would affect our universal reading of the book, because as people we look for reasons to make sense of aspects of identity. Same, to an extent, with Oscar Wilde and “Importance of Being Earnest”, but knowledge of his double life aids in understanding where “bunburying” is coming from. Undertones are what are most commonly tied to an author’s life, in my experience. Its give and take ultimately, by strictly doing one or the other in their extremes we do lose both insight and understanding in an unlimited and limited views.

    1. This is a compelling post William, as is your response to it Katie. But what, I wonder, does a work of creative nonfiction–where the authorial presence is regularly a component of the text that cannot be overlooked–bring to this discussion? How does a Reader-Response reading contend with the author and her voice when it is explicitly directing the reading of the text, as with Lauren Slater in Lying? I have to think there is some space left for biographical context informing the way a reader receives a work of of creative nonfiction…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.