Meaning In The Reader

The reader has been put an emphasis on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. But it is the German Aesthetics of Reception and American Reader-Response Criticism that have promoted the reader onto the ontological level of literary studies. The latter is especially responsible for the reader-centered orientation of critical study. Reader-Response Criticism hinges upon the questions of reader, reading process and response. It is a direct opposition to New Criticism's assumption that the text is a self-sufficient repository of meaning. It provides the alternative that the reader is the source of literary meaning, or at least contributory. This thesis attempts to examine the role and the function of the reader in the determination of literary meaning, and thus justify as well as criticize some of the claims in Reader-Response Criticism. The thesis is developed by comparison and contrast of different theorists as well as examples of critical studies.Aesthetics of Reception has first diverted attention to the role of reader in literary interpretation. The research done by the Gemini of Reception-Aesthetics — Hans Robert Jauss and Wolfgang Iser has been especially contributory. Jauss situates the reader in the cycle of literary production, assumption and reproduction, and thus recognizes him as an energetic force in the literary history of reception, which emphasizes the receptions of generations of readers. Corresponding to Jauss's macroscopic investigation, Iser devotes himself to the microcosmic study of Aesthetic response, which centers on the interaction between the text and the reader. He claims that textual meaning is to be realized in the reader's active reading, otherwise the potential of the text cannot be brought into full play. The theories of the two skillfully complement each other and provide aims and methodologies for the Anglo-American Reader-Response Criticism as a referential system.Among all the critics in Reader-Response Criticism, I choose two to illustrate my viewpoint. One is Stanley E. Fish, and the other is Jonathan Culler. They approach the reader's role from different angles of vision. Fish starts with the study of stylistics, while Culler establishes the reader on the basis of structuralist poetics.Fish in his earlier study advocates the "affective stylistics", which attacks fiercely the new critical dictum the "affective fallacy". He argues that the objectivity of the text is but an illusion and consequently should not be placed in the center of literary research. What is objective and reliable is the reader's temporal experience when he reads the text and grasps the meaning as an event. Differentiated from Iser, who believes in the cooperation and interaction between the text and the reader, Fish replaces the structure of the text by the experiential structure of the reader, who, in his opinions, is the only source of meaning. However, Fish admits that the reader's responses are not arbitrary, but are governed by his linguistic and semantic competence. Hence Fish constructs the notion of the informed reader, which is different from Jauss's actual reader and Iser's implied reader.In the later part of his theory, Fish modifies his former ideas. He gradually develops the concept of "interpretive communities" as a solution to the problems raised by "affective stylistics". An interpretive community is defined as the groups, the members of which share the same or similar reading strategies in writing the text and thus will perform similarly in reading. The community is regarded as the category, which accommodates the author, the text and the reader, and becomes the source of literary meaning.Fish's theory has its advantages and disadvantages at once. It heightens the reader's position and therefore tremendously changes the concept of literature and literary meaning. However, his investigation of the reader's experience and responses are specific and biased. And there is a great gulf that he cannot surpass — the dichotomy of the text and the reader.