The Evolution of Reader Response Theory
While reading the Reader Response Theory, it was quite difficult to read and even more difficult to understand. As I continued to read it over again it began to make sense. Readers of literature adopt what is called a stance. This type of reading is either efferent or aesthetically. When people read any type of literature their interpretation may be different from the next parsons even though they read the same thing. When reading the chapter the first time I believe I took on a more efferent stance and focused more on the important information losing site as to what the chapter was really about. When going back to read it later the aesthetic stance of reading was done with more of a different understanding, ready to enjoy what was being read. One could only imagine that each student in the class had a different understanding or stance when reading this chapter also.
In chapter 2 of Engaging English Learners (2009) Rosenblatt speaks of the reading experience. It states that during the mid twentieth century, the literary community witnessed a rise in descent of the New Criticism of the reader response movement. Although not all reader response theorists agreed entirely on all issues, consequently, different branches of the movement were formed. A theory that coincides with the notion that the audience’s response to a novel is more important than the writer’s intention is called “reader-response theory” or “reader-response criticism”
There are so many different meanings because of so many variables contributing to our experience of text. “Meaning comes into existence not when the text is written, but when it is read and responded to” (Dalke 66) According to both Dalke, the reader is the authority of the implications of the text.
The main advocates of Reader Response Theory, acknowledges the...