Reading in Critical Theory - Steven Mailloux

Review: Reading in Critical Theory
Author(s): Steven Mailloux

Review by: Steven Mailloux
Source: MLN, Vol. 96, No. 5, Comparative Literature (Dec., 1981), pp. 1149-1159
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2906242
Accessed: 26-04-2015 09:57 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to MLN.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 138.251.14.35 on Sun, 26 Apr 2015 09:57:33 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Readingin CriticalTheory
StevenMailloux
Jane P. Tompkins, ed., Reader-ResponseCriticism:From Formalismto

Post-Structuralism
Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins UniversityPress, 1980.
xxvi + 275 pages
The cartoon on the cover of Reader-Response Criticism shows two people
reading over the shoulders of a third person. Each reader is responding
differentlyto the text-one onlooker is laughing,the othercrying,and the
holder of the book seems absorbed but otherwise unexpressive. This
cartoon nicelycaptures a central problem addressed by reader-response
critics:How can we explain differentresponsesto the same literarywork?I
will return to this question below, but I would firstlike to re-use the
cartoon as an emblem for my own commentson Reader-Response Criticism.
The three pictured responses to one book suggest that a text can offer
several readings to its interpreters.In what followsI willdiscuss the three
waysReader-Response Criticismasks to be read: as an introductionto a new
criticalapproach; as a metacriticaldescriptionof that approach; and as a
critiqueof the approach and the criticaltraditionout of whichit emerges.
Jane Tompkins' excellentcollectionis above all a useful introductionto
currenttalkabout readers in literarytheory,talkthatsupportsa new focus
on readers reading in practical criticism.Within the Anglo-American
tradition, twentieth-century intrinsiccriticismsuccessfullydisplaced a
reader-oriented emphasis in favor of exclusive attention to the
autonomous literarytext.Though I. A. Richards,Kenneth Burke, Louise
Rosenblatt, and D. W. Harding kept the reader from completely
disappearing during the hegemony of New Critical formalism, the
prohibitionagainstthe "AffectiveFallacy"did suppress talk about readers
in both criticaltheoryand practice.Tompkins' anthologyshows how the
reader appeared prominentlyonce again in criticaldiscourse. She reprints
MLNVol.96 Pp. 1149-1159

0026-7910/81/0965-1149
$01.00 Press
? 1981byTheJohnsHopkinsUniversity
1150 STEVEN MAILLOUX
influentialessays by Walker Gibson, Gerald Prince, Michael Riffaterre,

Georges Poulet, Wolfgang Iser, Stanley Fish, Norman Holland, and
Walter Michaels, and importantchapters frombooks byJonathan Culler
and David Bleich. As an introductionto reader-response criticism,this
collection does more than simply reproduce a pre-existent literary
approach. Reader-Response Criticismactually attemptsto define a critical
"movement" and therefore helps establish and disseminate it as well.
Tompkins' introductoryand concluding essays and her comprehensive
bibliographymake significantcontributionsto this attempt,but it is her
skillfulselection of articlesthat is most importantto my reading of her
book as an introduction.Some highlightsof this firstreading follow.
The essaysbyGibson,Prince,and Riffaterreshow how the reader can be
reintroduced into formalistdiscussions of the literarywork. Gibson's
"mock reader" and Prince's "narratee" identifyreaders implied by or
inscribed in the text, while Riffaterre's"superreader" simply locates
textual units that are active in poetic structure.It is with Poulet's essay,
"Criticismand the Experience of Interiority,"that we really move from
text to reader, or more exactly,from reader as textual functionto the
reading processitself.How does the reader interactwiththe text?How can
thisinteractionbe described?These are the questionsthatconcern mostof
the theoristsin Reader-Response Criticism.
I can best summarize Poulet's essay by taking on the first-person
pronoun that figures so prominentlyin his argument: In reading, my
consciousnessis filledby the author's consciousnessexistingin the literary
work. I thinkthoughtsnot my own, while I "live, from the inside, in a
certain identitywiththe work and the work alone." There is a fusion of
consciousnesses, a sharing in which "the consciousness inherent in the
work is active and potent" and I "record passivelyall that is going on in
me." Reading becomes an act in which"the subjectiveprinciplewhichI call
I, is modified in such a way that I no longer have the right, strictly
speaking, to consider it as myI."
Poulet's descriptionof the reading process is troublingwhen placed in
the contextof the reader-responseessays that followit. In fact,despite its
emphasis on authorial consciousness, Poulet's explicit theoryof reading
strangely recalls the reading model impliedby Anglo-American New
Criticism. Like Poulet, the New Critics assumed that the literarytext
somehow imprinteditselfon the reader's consciousness-the textjust took
over. Both Poulet and the New Criticsposit a reader who effaceshimself
before the textso it can do its work; both believe in a passivereader acted
upon ratherthan acting. It is this fictionof the passive reader that Iser,
Fish, Culler, Holland, and Bleich reject in theiressays.
WolfgangIser's "The Reading Process: A PhenomenologicalApproach"
makes use of Poulet'sarticlebut puts itin a new theoreticalframework.For
Iser, the writtenpart of the textleaves gaps thatthe reader's imagination
mustfill,resultingin a dynamicprocess of interactionbetweenreader and
M L N 1151
text.Besides a constantinterweavingof anticipationand retrospection,the

reader also engages in a search for a consistentpattern in the text, a
"gestalt"thatnormallytakes on the fixedoutlineof illusion.However, the
polysemanticnatureof the textopposes the illusion-makingof the reader;
the "configurativemeaning" formedby the reader is alwaysaccompanied
by "alien associations"thatdo not fit.Consistency-building and -breaking
entangle the reader in the text'sgestalt,and thisentanglementopens up
the reader to the workings of the text as he leaves behind his own
preconceptions.In doing so, the reader thinksthe thoughtsof another; he
"internalizes"the ideas of the author in a processultimatelydifferentfrom
what Poulet describes.
Iser's essay provides a wide-ranging theoretical discussion of his
phenomenological approach to reader-response criticism.The general
natureof the discussionleaves manyquestions unanswered; forexample:
How does the "writtenpart"of the textimpose what Iser calls "limitson its
unwritten implications"? What exactly is the relation between
"configurativemeaning" and "illusion"? Iser answers these and other
questionsin the mostdetailed presentationof his model, TheActofReading,
a book which continues thisessay's strategyof offeringa littlesomething
for everybody in current literary theory.1 There are interpretive
constraints in the text (schematized views, textual perspectives) for
traditional formalists and there are spaces encouraging a reader's
interpretivefreedom (textual gaps or blanks) for the champions of the
reader. There is determinacy(the writtenpart of the text) for objective
criticsand indeterminacy(the unwrittenpart of the text) for deconstruc-
tionists.There are idiosyncraticcomponents to response (individual dis-
positions)for psychologicalreading theoristsand intersubjectivecompo-
nents (the repertoire) for sociological reading theorists.There is also a
temporalas well as a spacial model of interpretation.And finallythe book
(though not the essay) provides both a privatizedview of reading and a
social contextfor the literarywork. The factthat criticaltheoristsas dif-
ferentas Monroe Beardsley and Hans-Robert Jauss have found Iser's
reading model attractivetestifiesto the persuasive success of his multi-
faceted project. I have elsewhere argued that this very success works
against Iser's actual importance for initiatingchange in contemporary
literarystudy.2
Along with Iser, Stanley Fish and Jonathan Culler are probably the
reader theoristsmostwidelyread in the United States.Fish's"Literaturein
the Reader: AffectiveStylistics"presentsa temporalreading model which
calls attentionto the sequence of acts performedby the reader in response
to the text. Fish has used this model in several impressiveexamples of
practicalcriticism,especiallySurprisedbySin and Self-Consuming Artifacts.
3
"Literature in the Reader" explains the assumptions underlyingthese

descriptions of "the structure of the reader's experience." Fish here
defines "the reader" as "the informedreader," one whose linguisticand
literarycompetence enables him to have the experience the textprovides.

Culler takes as his project a descriptionof the literarycompetence Fish
merelyassumes in "Literaturein the Reader" and his other early work.
Culler's Structuralist Poetics attempts to define the procedures and
conventionsreaders use to make sense of literarytexts.4Focusing on the
activityof reading,he uses structuralist insightsto describethe interpretive
operations on which literature, as an institution,depends. Tompkins
reprints Culler's central chapter on literary competence,whichhe defines
as "what an ideal reader must know implicitlyin order to read and
interpretworksin ways whichwe consider acceptable, in accordance with
the institutionof literature."In his more recentbook, ThePursuitofSigns,
Culler admits that the competence he describes mightbe "confined to a
tiny community of professional critics" and that other interpretive
communitiesmighthave differentnorms.5These suggestionstake a step
towardansweringthe charge thatCuller's notionof literarycompetenceis
too staticand exclusionary.
In contrastto Culler's social model of reading conventions,Holland's
and Bleich's psychological theories emphasize the individual reader.
Holland's essay, "Unity Identity Text Self," outlines his view that
people alwaysexpress theirdifferentidentitythemes in reading. Holland
has most fullydeveloped this "transactive"approach in Poemsin Persons
and 5 ReadersReading.6Bleich's "EpistemologicalAssumptionsin the Study
of Response" belongs more appropriately to my second reading of
Tompkins' collectionas metacriticalcommentary,since the essay primarily
discusses other reader-oriented projects. However, this extract from
Bleich's Subjective Criticismalso presents the author's own form of
reader-responsetheory.Bleich develops this theoryfirstin Readingsand
Feelings and more completely in Subjective Criticism.7Both books
demonstrate that Bleich's attention to response grows out of his
pedagogical concerns. Interested in how individual students read
literatureand how they share their responses in the classroom, Bleich
proposes a three-stepmodel. The reader firstsymbolizesthe work in a
perceptual and affectiveresponse. Then this initialresponse calls for an
explanation, resultingin an act of resymbolizationby the reader; Bleich
points out that this resymbolizationis an interpretationof the reader's
subjectiveresponse, not of some objectivetext. Finally,the reader shares
his response and interpretationwithina communitywhere he negotiates
his "response statement"into knowledgeof self,literature,and language.
Though most often seen as psychological and individualistic,Bleich's
evolvingtheorynow appears to stresssociological and communal issues.
Earlier, especially in Readingsand Feelings,Bleich emphasized individual
response; in sectionsof SubjectiveCriticism and after,he focuses more on
communal negotiation,as the present essay illustrates.I have elsewhere
criticizedBleich's central notion of negotiationfor what I take to be an
incomplete account of the move from individual response to communal
M L N 1153
consensus.8However, Bleich is beginningto address thisproblem,and it is

possible thathis growingemphasis on communitiesmightencourage him
to give up the absolute priorityof the individual self in interpretation.
The most challenging selection in Reader-ResponseCriticismis Fish's
"Interpretingthe Variorum."Despite its precise prose and distinctideas,
the essay remains difficultbecause of the radical adjustmentsit demands
fromitsreader. Fish reprints"Interpretingthe Variorum"in Is Therea Text
in ThisClass?,where he supplies sectionheadings thatusefullydescribethe
required changes in focus.9The firsttwo sectionsare called "The Case for
Reader-Response Analysis,"and they again present Fish's argument for
the temporal reading model and critical approach he had detailed in
"Literaturein the Reader." But in the thirdsection,"Undoing the Case for
Reader-Response Analysis,"Fish abandons the descriptiveclaims for his
Affective Stylisticsand its priority over formalist and other critical
methodologies,a priorityhe had persuasivelyargued for in the firsttwo
sections.Instead, in sectionIII he contendsthatall criticalapproaches are
simplydifferentinterpretivestrategiescreatingwhat theypretendto find.
Then in section IV, "Interpretive Communities," Fish develops this
hermeneutictheoryfurther:interpretivestrategiesare alwayscommunal,
never idiosyncratic;thereforeinterpretationin reading is constrainedby
the strategies made available through membership in different
interpretive communities.Interpretivecommunities"are made up of those
who share interpretivestrategiesnot for reading (in the conventional
sense) but forwritingtexts,forconstitutingtheirpropertiesand assigning
theirintentions."
There appears to be a problem here. In section III Fish abandons
descriptiveclaims but in section IV he is back describing the reading
process. How can Fish claim to describe reading when he has just said that
such descriptionsare disguised interpretationsthat fill the category of
"reading" ratherthan capturingsome pre-existentprocess? Fish does not
give his reader much help here. However,the solutionto the problemturns
out to be simple: both the thirdand fourthsectionsconsistentlytalkabout
interpretation,but the interpreterdiscussed changes. In section III the
interpreteris the criticwhose interpretationconstitutes the text, the
reading experience,or the author'sintention.In sectionIV the interpreter
is the readerwhose interpretivestrategiesconstitutethe texthe is reading.
In other words, in the thirdsection reading is an objectof interpretation,
and in the final section reading is interpretation.Thus, the reader of
"Interpretingthe Variorum"has had to make three major adjustmentsin
followingFish'sargument:sectionsI and II encourage the reader to accept
Affective Stylisticsas the most privileged, most objective of critical
approaches; section III then asks the reader to give up the priorityof
AffectiveStylisticsand see it as a criticalinterpretationthatcreateswhat it
previously(in sectionsI and II) claimed to describe; and finallysection IV
requires the reader to move fromcriticismback to reading in order to see
that reading itself is an interpretiveprocess that creates (rather than

interactswith)the literarytext.Making these difficultadjustmentsposes a
challenge for the article'sreader, but it is a challenge well worthmeeting
because "Interpreting the Variorum"stands out as perhaps the most
valuable contributionto this fine collectionof essays.
I can conclude thisfirstreading of Tompkins' anthologyby returningto
the question suggested by its cover cartoon: why do readers respond
differentlyto the "same" text? Gibson and Prince imply that varied
responses are due to readers' differentcapabilitiesin recognizingthe mock
reader's or narratee'sguiding functionin a work.Riffaterreclaimsthatthe
fact of response to the same poetic structureis common to normalreaders,
but he acknowledges that the contentof that reaction might differ
accordingto a reader's "culture,era, esthetics,personality"or it mightseem
to differbecause a certainreader rationalizes"his responses to fitinto his
sphere of interestand itstechnicalterminology."Poulet implieseitherthat
there is no significantvarietyin response or that diverse responses could
resultfromthe reader's success or failurein allowingthe workto take over
and displace the self during reading. Iser sees various concretizationsas
due to readers fillingtextualgaps differently accordingto theirindividual
dispositions. The early Fish denies that informed readers have varied
responses (they all read the same way) but admits that theydo respond
differentlyto their responses (liking or disliking their shared reading
experiences); thatis, responses don't differbut responses to response do.
Bleich and Holland make varietyin reading experiencesthe centerof their
theories and explain that varietyby positing differentsubjectivitiesor
identitythemes.Culler rejectssuch radical discrepanciesbetweenreading
experiencesand claimsinsteadthatreaders withliterarycompetenceshare
reading conventionsthat provide a (relativelynarrow)range of acceptable
interpretations.And finally,in his revisedtheory,Fish argues thatreaders
read differently when theybelong to diverse interpretivecommunities.In
answer to the question, why do readers respond to the same text
differently?,Fish claims theyare not actuallyrespondingto the sametext;
rather,representativesfromdifferentinterpretivecommunitiesconstitute
differenttexts even when they appear (from some other interested
perspective)to be reading the same one.
As an attemptto establish and disseminate reader-response criticism,
Tompkins' anthology presents a good selection of articles, a helpful
introductoryessay, and the most comprehensive,annotated bibliography
yetpublished. Anyone interestedin learningabout reader-orientedtheory
can best begin by approaching it throughReader-Response In light
Criticism.
of this firstreading of the book as an introduction,Tompkins does make
one mistake:she failsto note that Michaels' essay is not reallyan example
of reader-responsecriticismor theory.It is, rather,an incisivecommenton
one problem within several contemporary approaches, including
reader-orientedcriticism.Michaels uses C. S. Peirce's reading of Descartes
M L N 1155
to rejecttwo prominentaccountsof textualinterpretation:one based on "a

notion of the self free to assert its subjectivitywithoutconstraint"(a la
Bleich, Holland, and M. H. Abrams' version of J. Hillis Miller) and the
other based on "a notionof the selfwiped clean of prejudice and ready to
accept determinatemeaning" (in the work of Abrams and E. D. Hirsch).
These twopositions"are simplythe flipsides of thecontext-freeself,active
and passive; one generates any interpretationit pleases, the other denies
thatit interpretsat all." Opposing such claims,Michaels advocates Peirce's
view that the interpreter'sself "is already embedded in a context, the
community of interpretation or system of signs." Informed by a
post-structuralist reading of American pragmatism,Michaels' essay is an
exceedingly lucid discussion of a controversialissue in current literary
theory.Though it is not specificallya piece of reader-responsecriticism,it
does provide a perspectiveon that criticaltheoryand thus formspart of
the second way Reader-Response Criticismcan be read-as a metacritical
description.
In my first reading, Tompkins' collection tells the story of the
appearance and disappearance of the individual reader. Emerging from
the text(in Gibson, Prince,and Riffaterre),the individualreader interacts
withthe text in the various plots of reader-responsecriticism(in Poulet,
Iser, Bleich, Holland, and early Fish). The individual reader then
disappears again as he becomes eitherthe anonymouscrossroadsof shared
reading conventions (in Culler) or the predetermined extension of an
interpretivecommunity(in later Fish). Michaels' essay does not fitintothis
storyunless it is seen as an ironiccoda showingthatthe appearance of the
individual reader (active and passive) was an illusion all the time, a
dream-visionbuilt on the fancifulassumptionof a context-freeself.
My second reading of Reader-Response Criticism as metacritical
commentaryproduces a differentstory than the rise and fall of the
individualreader. This new tale is a narrativeabout the transformations of
the reader reading. From the perspectiveofferedin the concluding three
essays by Fish, Michaels, and Tompkins, Reader-Response Criticismis a
complex discussion and illustrationof the various ways "the reader" can be
used as an interpretive device. "The reader" now becomes either a
categoryin literary theory filledby the interpretiveassumptionsof different
reader-responsecriticsor a tool in practicalcriticism for talkingabout the
literary work. With the reader serving as a category,the essays
theoretical
change into a procession of the reader's differentdisguises-formalist,
semiotic,phenomenological,psychoanalytic, and structuralist-concluding
withthe reader's unmaskingin post-structuralism. Reader-responsecritics
fill the category of the reader differentlyaccording to the interpretive
assumptionsof theirdifferenttheoreticaldiscourses. This means that the
"reading process" is not prior to and independent of those discourses;
rather,as interpretation, reader-responsetheoryconstitutesthe process it
claims to be neutrallydescribing.Portraying"the reader" as a theoretical
category or analytical tool, my second reading of Reader-Response Criticism

focuses attention on the interpretiveconventionsinvolved in critical
discussions of the literary reading process. Thus, Tompkins' volume
becomes more than an introductionto reader theory;it now appears as a
unique survey of contemporary critical approaches, applying these
approaches to the reading process instead of the text.
The thirdway of reading this volume requires a shiftfrommetacritical
descriptionto metacriticalevaluation.The perspectivefor this finalreading
is providedbythe concludingpages of Tompkins' "The Reader in History:
The Changing Shape of LiteraryResponse," the lastessay in the collection.
In this truly impressive article (published here for the first time),
Tompkins situates current reader-response criticismin the historyof
literary theory. She convincingly demonstrates that contemporary
reader-orientedcriticism"owes nothingto the ancient rhetoricaltradition
it seems at firstto resemble, and almost everythingto the formalist
doctrines it claims to have overturned." The consequence of taking
Tompkins' essay and certain items in her bibliographyas the basis of my
third reading is that Reader-Response Criticismbecomes an attack on the
American criticaltraditionand on reader criticismitselfbecause of what
both continue to exclude fromcriticaldiscourse.
In her essay, Tompkins shows how New Criticism established the
priorityof textual explication for literarystudyin the twentiethcentury.
New Criticsviewed the textas a possessorof structuredmeaning and then
privileged the critical activitywhich discovered that meaning. Current
American criticism has simply assumed this privileging of critical
interpretation. As Tompkins puts it, "What is most striking about
reader-responsecriticismand its close relative,deconstructivecriticism,is
theirfailureto break out of the mold intowhichcriticalwritingwas cast by
the formalistidentificationof criticismwithexplication."I do not entirely
agree withTompkins here. Reader-responsecriticismdoes in factsuggest
some alternativesto the traditionalprojectsof American criticism.Citing
just those criticsanthologized, Holland and Bleich's psychologicalstudies
of reading do not easily fit into the traditional mold, and Culler has
explicitlyrejectedexplicationas the mostimportantcriticalactivityin favor
of a literarytheorythat describes how readers and criticsmake sense of
texts.10Still,the main point of Tompkins' assertionis well-taken:the most
influentialreader-response critics-e.g., Iser and early Fish-are those
who apply their approaches in critical interpretations. Indeed,
reader-oriented criticism tends toward business as usual within the
institutionof literarystudies. For those who seek to change the institution,
reader-responsecriticismand theoryis ultimatelya disappointment.
The most disturbingfact about currentreader-orientedcriticismis its
strikinglydepoliticizednature. In a footnoteto her introduction,Tompkins
mentions German reception aesthetics-especially the work of Hans
RobertJauss-among the significantomissions from her anthology,and
M L N 1157
she listsseveral itemson Rezeptionsdsthetik in her bibliography.Reception

studyfocuses on the differenthistoricalconcretizationsof literaryworks
and providesa historyof literaryconsumptionthatbalances the dominant
literaryhistoriesof production. Jauss's model of reception and impact
specifiesthata workis actualized accordingto the intra-and extra-literary
horizons of readers' expectations.The inclusion of extra-literary horizons
setsJauss'sprojectofffrommostreader-responseapproaches, whichfocus
exclusively on intra-literaryhorizons. The omission of Jauss from
Tompkins' collectionis thereforea symptomof the more general exclusion
within reader-oriented theory as a whole: the missing discussions of
political,historical,and social contextsof reading. It is a testimonyto the
apolitical nature of the dominant critical tradition that most
reader-responsecriticismis rigorouslydepoliticized,oftenahistorical,and
only narrowly social. I mean "apolitical" in two senses here: the
depoliticized use of the reader as an interpretivedevice in practical
criticism and literary history, and the neglect of power relations in
descriptionswithin literarytheory, e.g., the omission of accounts and
historiesof literarystudy'sinstitutionaldynamics.
In Reader-Response Criticismonly Tompkins' "The Reader in History"
notesthat current reader criticismlacks a politicalaspect. In fact,her essay
provides an insightful reason for this lack. Because New Criticism
established the institutionalterms for literarystudy, reader-response
criticismhas simplyassumed the New Criticalconception of literatureas
"an object of interpretation"and thereforeviews response as "a way of
arrivingat meaning,and not as a formof politicaland moral behavior." If
Tompkins is correcthere-and I thinkshe is-reader-response criticismis
just another form of what Edward Said has called apolitical
"functionalism," a criticaldiscourse thattalks"about whata textdoes, how
itworks,how ithas been put togetherto do certainthings,how the textis a
whollyintegratedand equilibrated system,and so forth."The problem
withsuch functionalismis thatit neglectsthe work's"materiality," the text's
"situationin the world."1 The result is that "the text becomes idealized,
essentialized, instead of remaining as the very special kind of cultural
object whichit reallyis, witha causation, persistence,durability,and social
presence quite its own." Some of the questions Said wants answered can
only be approached througha trulyhistoricaland materialisticreception
aestheticsbased on a politically-articulate reader-responsecriticism:How
is the literarytext "a monument, a cultural object sought after,fought
over, possessed, rejected, or achieved in time"? What is the range of the
text'sauthority?"Why does a textenjoy currencyat one time,recurrency
at others,oblivionat others?"12These and other politicalquestions are not
answered nor even asked by most reader-responsecritics.
However, I cannot leave this charge without mentioningan implicit
defense supplied by Tompkins' "The Reader in History." The reading
models proposed in Reader-Response Criticismsuggest that reading takes
place in a politicalvacuum; thatis, theysuggestthatreading literatureis a

process with no political constraints or effects. Tompkins does not
specificallypoint this out, but she does say that for reader-response
criticismthe "textremainsan object ratherthanan instrument, an occasion
for the elaboration of meaning rather than a force exerted upon the
world."Furthermore,she presentsan accountthatI can use to explain and
evenjustifythe depoliticizednatureof reader-responsemodels. Tompkins
describes how literature before the nineteenth century played an
importantrole in the social and politicalworld. But in the nineteenthand
twentiethcenturies literature and social life became more and more
separated. The questions addressed by reader-response criticism,
Tompkins argues, "do not arise until artisticactivityhas become cut off
from the centers of political life and the art product loses its power to
influence public opinion on mattersof national importance." Such an
argumentcan be used to justifythe apolitical reading models of current
reader criticism: these models merely reflect the privatized,
"contemplative"reading experiences of modern times. But has literature
really been politicallyand socially impotent during the last 180 years?
More exactly,have reading experiences trulytaken place in a politicalor
social vacuum? Tompkins' own exceptional work on Uncle Tom'sCabin13
testifiesagainsther argumenthere; as does the phenomena of politicaland
ethical censorship by local school boards and national authoritarian
governments.
Less debatable are Tompkins' concluding remarkson power relations.
In the last pages of "The Reader in History,"she shiftsher attentionfrom
reader-responsecriticismto the metacriticaltheoryin Fish's and Michaels'
essays (which I described in mysecond reading above). Tompkins defines
this theoryas based on the belief that all language "is constitutiveof the
realityit purports to describe." A study of language grounded in this
assumption "necessarily takes on a political character." As Tompkins
persuasivelyargues, such a studyin criticaltheorymustbe concerned with
"the relationsof discourse and power." More specifically:"What makes
one set of perceptual strategies or literaryconventions win out over
another? If the world is the product of interpretation,then who or what
determineswhich interpretivesystemwill prevail?" These are important
questions,not only for reader-responsecriticsbut, as Tompkins suggests,
forall literarytheorists.
Given all or any of the three readings I have proposed, Reader-Response
Criticism stands out as a significantcontributionto contemporarycritical
theory.A high complimentpaid to editorsof such volumes is thattheynot
only presentan approach but also give theirreaders tools forevaluatingit.
Jane Tompkins accomplishes this task admirably for reader-response
criticismand for the criticaltraditionit both revisesand maintains.
ofMiami
University
M L N 1159
NOTES
1 Wolfgang Iser, The ActofReading:A TheoryofAesthetic Response(Baltimore and

London: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1978).
2 Steven Mailloux, "How to Be Persuasive in Literary Theory: The Case of
Wolfgang Iser," Centrum,N.S. 1 (1981), 65-73.
3 StanleyE. Fish, SurprisedbySin: The Readerin ParadiseLost,2nd ed. (Berkeley:
Univ. of California Press, 1971); Self-Consuming Artifacts:The Experienceof
Seventeenth-Century Literature(Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1972).
4 Jonathan Culler, Structuralist Linguistics,and the Studyof
Poetics:Structuralism,
Literature (Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1975).
5 JonathanCuller, The PursuitofSigns: Semiotics, Deconstruction
Literature, (Ithaca:
Cornell Univ. Press, 1981), pp. 73, 51.
6 Norman N. Holland, Poems in Persons:An Introduction to thePsychoanalysis of
Literature(New York: W. W. Norton, 1973); 5 ReadersReading(New Haven: Yale
Univ. Press, 1975).
7 David Bleich,Readingsand Feelings:An Introduction toSubjectiveCriticism
(Urbana,
Ill.: NCTE, 1975); SubjectiveCriticism(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Univ.
Press, 1978).
8 Steven Mailloux, Interpretive Conventions:"The Reader" in theStudyof American
Fiction(Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, forthcoming),ch. 1.
9 Stanley Fish, Is There a Text in This Class? The Authority of InterpretiveCom-
munities(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1980), pp. 148-73.
10 Jonathan Culler, "Beyond Interpretation: The Prospects of Contemporary
Criticism,"Comparative Literature,28 (1976), 244-56.
11 Edward W. Said, "Roads Taken and Not Taken in ContemporaryCriticism,"in
Directionsfor Criticism,ed. Murray Krieger and L. S. Dembo (Madison: Univ. of
WisconsinPress, 1977), pp. 38, 43, 46.
12 Said, pp. 43, 45.
13 Jane P. Tompkins, "Sentimental Power: UncleTom's Cabin and the Politicsof
LiteraryHistory,"Glyph,8 (1981), 79-102.

Reading in Critical Theory - Steven Mailloux

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Reading in Critical Theory - Steven Mailloux

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review: Reading in Critical Theory

Author(s): Steven Mailloux

Jane P. Tompkins, ed., Reader-ResponseCriticism:From Formalismto

MLNVol.96 Pp. 1149-1159

influentialessays by Walker Gibson, Gerald Prince, Michael Riffaterre,

text.Besides a constantinterweavingof anticipationand retrospection,the

"Literature in the Reader" explains the assumptions underlyingthese

literarycompetence enables him to have the experience the textprovides.

consensus.8However, Bleich is beginningto address thisproblem,and it is

that reading itself is an interpretiveprocess that creates (rather than

to rejecttwo prominentaccountsof textualinterpretation:one based on "a

category or analytical tool, my second reading of Reader-Response Criticism

she listsseveral itemson Rezeptionsdsthetik in her bibliography.Reception

place in a politicalvacuum; thatis, theysuggestthatreading literatureis a

1 Wolfgang Iser, The ActofReading:A TheoryofAesthetic Response(Baltimore and

Potrebbero piacerti anche