![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Reader Response Criticism
I’ve recently been thinking a lot about the nature of communication, and have realized a big stumbling block. A lot of times, I’ll just think that if I’m clear enough in the messages I transmit, then people will automatically “get” them in the same way as I meant them. But again and again, that’s proven to not be the case. In a sense, it almost seems like no matter what I say, the burden of communication is heavily weighted towards the recipient. If they are ready for it, they’ll get it. If they aren’t equipped to understand it, then they won’t. They are always going to project their own meanings into it regardless of how clear I am.
Interestingly, I just discovered that there’s a term for this in semiotics/cultural theory, called reader response. From Wikipedia:
Some take the position that there is no objective literary text at all, that the entire meaning of a literary work is in the reader’s mind, and that the reader’s personal biography, physical status, and psychology lay therefore at the center of a literary text. Others argue that meaning is a human event, rather than an objective fact, and therefore all of the meaning of a literary work is a social event (and not so solipsistically private) where the text creates a society and a common culture.
But I can’t just give up on the notion of trying to communicate clearly and effectively, because what’s the point of being an author if you abandon that? So I’ve been thinking a lot about the idea of how do you create a space for the reader to insert whatever it is they are going to insert? In other words, encourage interpretation (and possibly distortion) rather than try to block it out.
Wikipedia also has this great quote:
Literature should be viewed as a performing art where each reader creates their own, possibly unique, performance.
Looked at in that light, it seems that the job of the author is essentially to create a stage for the audience to perform in. What are the best ways to create that stage? How do you motivate people to come in and play and to enjoy themselves as they create their own unique “performing art” out of your work? Asking lots of open-ended questions and extending invitations seems to be a start.
- Tmbchr Criticism
- Offering Criticism Without Solutions
- What Am I Afraid Of?
- It’s just so goofy
- How Kerry could have slain Bush
- Prev: The Purpose of Communication
- Next: Byron Katie’s “The Work”
August 18th, 2005 at 1:55 pm
Experienced in commnuication I must say this…
Everybody has a unique perception of reality.
My favorite example: Shades of colors (other than the primaries) are interpreted differently from one person to the next.
So yes as an author to invovle your audience, you must limit the confines of your content.
On the other spectrum, some authors combat this situation by being very discriptive within their work (as in going about non-sensical details about the characters surroundings, delving even into the details of a table), to establish the readers perspective into what you want them to see. (BTW I hate this kind of reading)
Therefore Tim, I believe that once you realise this as you have, you have taken one of the biggest steps in being a good author.
August 18th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
It may seem a little heavy going, but I think this interview with Henry Corbin is relevant in its discussion of “presence” in the context of hermeneutics and interpretation:
From Heidegger to Suhravardi
August 18th, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Speaking of “Asking lots of open-ended questions and extending invitations seems to be a start.”
From NRO’s “The Corner” blog:
August 18th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
The job of the author, I believe, is first and foremost to entertain. An author who knows what his/her audience wants (and who his/her audience is) will play to that. Thus, James Joyce fans find “Finnegans Wake” highly entertaining while other readers of literature don’t. Joyce’s fans appreciated wordplay and stream-of-consciousness, and he increased these devices as he wrote further. I think half of it was his obsession and half of it was his realization that people were responding to this strain of his work.
Joyce is quoted as saying “”The demand that I make of my reader is that he should devote his whole life to reading my works.” And I think Joyce was correct– look at all the debate that still centers around FW, as well as “Ulysses”.
Second of all, the job of the author is to write– whether it be what you know or what you imagine, just write. It all works itself out in the end.
August 19th, 2005 at 11:07 am
the best film directors are actually projecting their film on the screen of my mind. but as the screen moves, as it is wont to do, the context of the film is modified. the best films explore and engage the world of my mind, and my mind explores and engages the world of the film.
more generally: an idea is not just a thing in space, but also space in and of itself. that is, the communication of an idea always creates a world (context) which the receiver may explore. the responses provoked within that context modify it accordingly. the evolving dialogue increases the richness of the context and the depth of experience of those engaged in said dialogue.
this blog is a good example of this process in action. a place for us to explore and experience, generated and modified by the ideas expressed here. and every one of us has no choice but to trust each other’s experience of this realm.
these imaginal realms may be seeded with clear and effective communication, but once you’ve projected your intent you must let it go and allow others to drive the dialogue with their own experiences. their experiences and responses depend on the form and virility of your seed and the fertility of the minds you inseminate, so to speak.
true. the act of writing designs and generates the very space you’re after, and the creative part of it is entirely your choice, but on the 7th day you really have no choice but to let us fuck around in it (god has the same trouble with the humans in his garden) just as we let your words fuck with our heads.
we trust you tim. trust your audience in kind.