Reader-Response Theory

What is reader-response theory?

Reader-response theory proposes that there is no inherent, pre-established or predetermined meaning

of a text. On the contrary, the meaning of a text is determined by a reader during the process of
interpretation. Thus, according to this literary theory, the reader occupies a central position with respect
to literary analysis. In the absence of a reader, the text holds no meaning or significance. In other words,
the text is a lifeless entity that is granted life and coherence as a result of the readers’ engagement with
it. Readers are thus active participants who create literature during the reading process.

The reader-response theory is also known as reception theory because it examines the way a text is
received by an audience.

Origin of the Theory:

The idea underlying the reader-response theory was initially formulated by Louise Rosenblatt in the
1930s. However, the theory eventually evolved and gained widespread recognition in the 1960s. Aside
from Rosenblatt, other prominent theorists who contributed to this theoretical framework include
Stanley Fish, Wolfgang Iser, David Bleich and Norman Holland.

Note: The reader-response theory serves as a direct contrast to the formalist or the new critical
approach. Both formalism and new criticism reinforce the self-sufficiency of the text and maintain that
every literary text has an inherently objective meaning that remains unchanged despite the passage of
time. Reader-response theory on the other hand, insists that a text has no concrete or objective
meaning and that the reader imparts his/her own meaning onto the text during the interpretive or
analytical process.

Hallmarks of Reader-Response Theory:

1) Meaning is not embedded in a text waiting to be discovered or found. On the contrary, meaning
is created or crafted by the reader during the process of textual analysis.
2) Reading is an experiential process. The response of each reader to a certain literary text is
determined by his/her personal experiences, ideological viewpoints and aesthetic preferences.
Since perceptions and experiences vary from one individual to another, the reading responses
and subsequent meanings deduced from a text will likewise differ from one reader to another.
Different readers might come up with radically different interpretations of the same text.
Moreover, the perceptions and worldview of an individual reader also transform over the course
of her/his lifetime. Therefore, the same reader might come up with radically different analyses
of the same literary text during the different phases of his/her life. Thus, according to the
reader-response theory, the meaning of a text is a dynamic, evolving and an ever-changing
phenomenon.
 A text can have multiple interpretations and no single interpretation can be regarded as being
absolute or most authentic. The interpretation of a reader is subject to endless modifications,
revisions and reinterpretations.
3) Although reader-response theory relies on the subjectivity of the readers’ responses, it does not
advocate that all possible interpretations of a text are equally valid. Each analytical viewpoint
proposed by the reader has to be substantiated through textual examples. Hence, one cannot
make far-fetched or invalid assumptions about a text and regard them as being authentic based
on the underlying premise of the reader-response theory. For instance, if a reader makes a claim
that Madame Defarge is the undisputed heroine of A Tale of Two Cities or that the ending of
Tess of the d’Urbervilles is highly optimistic- such statements would be refuted on the basis of
being invalid. No textual evidence exists to support either of the two aforementioned claims.

Various Approaches Pertaining to Reader-Response Theory

There is no one exclusive method of analyzing a text based on the reader-response theory. There
are several approaches one can adopt in relation to this theory. Some of the most prominent
reader-response theoretical approaches are highlighted below:

Transactional reader-response theory: As the name implies, this approach focuses on the
interaction between the reader and the text which ultimately leads to the formation of textual
meaning. This approach was initially proposed by Louise Rosenblatt and later expanded by Wolfgang
Iser. According to the transactional approach, both the reader and the text are significant in terms of
deciphering the text’s meaning.

One of the most essential aspects of the transactional approach revolves around Rosenblatt’s
insistence that during the reading process, readers should adopt an “aesthetic rather than efferent”
approach (Tyson 173). The efferent mode is fact-based and relies heavily on the information presented
in a text. On the contrary, the aesthetic mode or manner involves the reader’s personal relationship to
the text and the emotional responses evoked in the reader during the interactive process of reading.

Wolfgang Iser coined the terms determinate and indeterminate meaning to distinguish between the
facts or events determined by the text and the gaps in the text that are not clearly explained and can
have multiple interpretations (Tyson 174). Thus, determinate meaning is similar to the efferent mode
and leads to no question marks whereas the indeterminate meaning refers to those aspects or events in
the text that have not been conclusively explained and hence, are open-ended.

Example of Determinate and Indeterminate Meaning:

In A Tale of Two Cities, the determinate meaning would be the facts underlying the text and would
constitute the following events: Dr. Manette’s imprisonment in Bastille for eighteen years, his moving
back to Soho with his daughter Lucie, Charles Darnay’s initial trial, his marriage with Lucie, the outbreak
of the French revolution, Darnay’s arrest and subsequent release and Carton’s execution.
The indeterminate meaning of the novel would revolve around the following gaps or unexplained events
in the novel: how does Madame Defarge transform from a young girl to a ruthless monster? Why does
Carton instantly feel attracted to Lucie Mannete at first glance even though no conversation takes place
between Lucie and Carton at that particular point in time? What tragic event occurred in Carton’s
childhood that instilled a sense of irrepressible loss and loneliness in him?

In case of Tess of the d’Urbervilles, the unexplained event would be Tess’s abuse by Alec in the forest.
There is no definitive indication in the text as to whether Tess is abused or seduced. Moreover, the
readers are not given any information in relation to Tess’s decision to stay at Trantridge following the
presumable abuse. The readers can only make a variety of inferences regarding Tess’s motives. Based on
the emotional insights or personal responses, different readers will address the textual gaps in varied
ways.

Psychological reader-response theory: This approach was proposed by the psychoanalyst Norman
Holland and aims at analyzing the underlying implications of the psychological processes manifested by
the readers during the interpretive process. In other words, this particular reader-response approach
attempts to unravel what the reader’s interpretations about a literary text or a certain character, reveal
about the reader’s mindset.

Psychological reader-response critics maintain that a reader’s liking or disliking of a certain text or a
character is based on the psychological processes, defense mechanisms or other psychical components
of the reader’s psyche that are triggered during the reading process. Holland asserts that the same
defenses exhibited in everyday life come to the forefront during the interactive engagement with the
text. For instance, a person who was forced during his/her school years to complete the homework of
domineering children grows up harbouring a strong dislike for authoritative individuals who take credit
for other people’s work. Such a person will develop a strong aversion toward Mr. Stryver’s fictional
character because Stryver’s overbearing character reminds the reader of the unpleasant individuals
he/she encountered in his/her own childhood.

Likewise, if a strong feminist is asked to analyze Pride and Prejudice and A Tale of Two Cities, he/she will
engage in a very negative analysis of Jane Bennet’s ever-compromising character and will exhibit an
equal disdain for the picture-perfect Lucie Manette. Thus, psychological reader-response approach
rightly asserts that one’s life experiences dictate one’s literary preferences or one’s taste. One’s
response to a text is therefore, primarily governed by one’s emotional rather than intellectual
reasoning. Hence, Holland argues that “interpretation is primarily a psychological process rather than an
intellectual one” (Tyson 183).

Social reader-response theory: As the name denotes, this particular approach claims that there is “no
purely subjective individual response” (Tyson 185). The social reader-response approach was formulated
by Stanley Fish. According to Fish, all reading responses are determined and influenced by the
interpretive community to which the reader belongs. Interpretive community refers to a group of
people or critics who analyze texts in a similar fashion because they share the same set of cultural,
ideological, social or philosophical assumptions.
Fish argues that interpretative communities determine how a reader will read or respond to a certain
text. The interpretive strategies proposed by the interpretive community highlight what specific
meaning a reader is supposed to find in a text. Thus, social reader-response theorists argue that each
reader confronts a text with a predisposed reading strategy in mind.

Example: A reader belonging to an interpretive community that predominantly classifies Hardy as a

staunch fatalist will make a conscious effort to trace evidence of fatalistic philosophy in all of Hardy’s
texts. During the course of analysis, such a reader will dismiss and refuse to examine any textual
references in Hardy’s novels that reinforce the element of freewill.

Social Reader-Response analysis of Pride and Prejudice

An admirer of Austen who aligns her/himself with the interpretive community that primarily views
Austen as a feminist author will attempt to find feminist aspects in Pride and Prejudice. One way to
conduct such an analysis would be to explore the feminist traits evident in Elizabeth Bennet’s character.
Following the social reader-response critical approach, such a reader would analyze the following
incidents and quotes from the text to highlight Elizabeth’s feminism.

1. Elizabeth chooses her happiness over self-preservation when she refuses to marry Mr. Collins.
She does not let the grim financial prospects of her family compel her to opt for a mismatched
marital union that would only magnify her sadness and regret. The feminist streak in Elizabeth’s
personality is evident from the fact that she abhors the idea of being a martyr and believes that
her first obligation is to herself.
2. Elizabeth rejects Mr. Darcy’s first proposal and does not re-evaluate her decision until Mr. Darcy
is willing to perceive her as a social equal. This particular decision highlights Elizabeth’s decision
to accept a marriage on her own terms. Moreover, Elizabeth’s strong stance implies that she is
an autonomous individual capable of making her own decisions. She is an active rather than a
passive agent who believes in determining her own destiny. In the words of Lady Catherine,
Elizabeth is a “headstrong girl” (Austen 292) – Chapter 56
3. Elizabeth’s feminist streak is most vividly revealed in Chapter 56 during her conversation with
Lady Catherine. The thought-provoking exchange between the two ladies highlights the
following essential attributes of Elizabeth’s character.
a) Elizabeth does not believe herself to be inferior to any man based on her gender. Therefore,
she refuses to accept a position of subservience or to make an unwilling compromise in
terms of marriage. She states to Lady Catherine, Mr. Darcy “is a gentleman; I am a
gentleman’s daughter. So far we are equal” (Austen 292).
b) Elizabeth refuses to be forced into making a decision against her will. On Lady Catherine’s
insistence on not accepting Mr. Darcy’s probable proposal, Elizabeth replies, “I am not to be
intimidated into anything…” (Austen 293).
c) Above all, the most admirable feminist trait in Elizabeth’s character becomes evident when
she regards her own happiness as being supreme over every other worldly consideration
and boldly says to Lady Catherine, “I am only resolved to act in that manner, which will, in
my own opinion, constitute my happiness, without reference to you, or to any person…”
 (Austen 294). This statement reflects Elizabeth’s strong desire and will to opt for an equal
marriage that safeguards her happiness.
d) Elizabeth’s independent outlook and perspective is another example of her feminist
inclination. Regarding Elizabeth’s disposition, Mr. Bennet rightly observes that, “I know your
disposition, Lizzy. I know that you could be neither happy nor respectable, unless you truly
esteemed your husband; unless you looked up to him…” (Austen 310) – Chapter 59.
e) The aforementioned examples emphasize that Elizabeth’s actions as well as her dialogues
indicate that she refuses to be coerced into making half-hearted compromises or forceful
decisions imposed by a patriarchal society governed by male-oriented interests. On the
contrary, Elizabeth forges her own path to marital bliss and individual fulfillment thereby
reinforcing a quintessentially feminist stance.
https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/creating-literary-analysis/s10-03-focus-on-reader-
response-strat.html
recreating pride and prejudice as a feminist text during the process of reading