Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages
Reader Response Theory is a theory that focuses on the reader and their experience in literary works. The difference from other theories is that the main focus is not on the author and their works. Through this theory, the reader complements the work with their interpretation and gives a special literary meaning. Literature from the reader’s point of view acquires a particular purpose since, thanks to their point of view, which was not overlooked by the author, the reader creates their own picture of what is happening. Like any approach, this theory has its advantages and disadvantages, which will be described in this study.
Readers interpret the text in their own way is also seen as a lack of theory. This is because readers do not acquire the knowledge that the author has invested in his work. In addition, readers may not understand the original meaning embedded in the text by the creator. Thus, readers miss the new experience that the author sought to convey through their text.
The advantage of this theory is that people can think critically about the text and provide their point of view. Woodruff and Griffin (2017) state that Reader Response Theory generates students’ interest in reading and critical thinking. Readers have an active ability to think and ponder the provided text. In addition, this approach to reading allows one to read more meaningfully and accept the experience described by the author (Mart, 2019). The described advantages undoubtedly demonstrate the effectiveness of this approach to reading.
In conclusion, there are many different approaches to reading, and they all have their advantages and disadvantages. Reader Response Theory is the most robust and most effective reading theory, even despite the existing shortcomings. It allows to engage readers in an exciting reading process and form their own opinion about the work. In literature lessons, this approach is actively used and allows students to adopt the experience laid down by the author and reveal their abilities for critical thinking.
Mart, C. (2019). Reader-response Theory and literature discussions: a springboard for exploring literary texts. The New Educational Review, 1 (1), 78-87. Web.
Woodruff, A. & Griffin, R. (2017). Reader response in secondary settings: Increasing comprehension through meaningful interactions with literary texts . Texas Journal of Literacy Education, 5 (2), 108-116. Web.
Cite this paper
- Chicago (N-B)
- Chicago (A-D)
StudyCorgi. (2023, November 10). Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/
StudyCorgi. (2023, November 10). Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages. https://studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/
"Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages." StudyCorgi , 10 Nov. 2023, studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/.
1. StudyCorgi . "Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/.
StudyCorgi . "Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/.
StudyCorgi . 2023. "Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages." November 10, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/reader-response-theory-advantages-and-disadvantages/.
StudyCorgi . (2023) 'Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages'. 10 November.
This paper, “Reader Response Theory: Advantages and Disadvantages”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.
Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language.
If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.
“ How do readers feel about what they read? ” (Tyson 161).
Description of Theory:
Reader-Response theory focuses on the individual reaction and interpretation of a text by the reader as it is proposed that only the reader can give a text sufficient meaning. Each and every reader will interpret a text differently between readings depending on their intellect or knowledge of the history of which the text describes, mood, personal experiences, ideologies, and culture.
Benefit of Theory:
The text forces the reader to look beyond its words and search for the deeper meaning. As each reader interprets differently groups of readers form connections and understandings based on each other’s perspectives. As well perspectives will change over time and therefore making meaning unstable.
Disadvantage of Theory:
This theory is too subjective because it focuses on the reader’s interpretation therefore reader’s bias and ignores the actual meaning of the text (if there is one), meaning the reader can misinterpret the text and if the reader knows the author’s interpretation then the reader may not believe it, find fault in it, or completely disregard it.
Questions of Reader-Response Theorists to Interpret a Text:
These questions are important because different perspectives will help enlighten different aspects of the story that would not be seen if not from a certain point of view.
- Where does the text have gaps of missing information “indeterminacy” in the story that causes the reader to have to fill in themselves?
- At what points is a reader most connected to a text? Why?
"To mend and mold and shape minds, let's first break the barriers of learning…"
Intended learning outcomes
By the completion of this topic, the students should be able to:
- Explain reader-response criticism;
- Discuss the gist of the short story “The Gift of the Magi”;
- Write a reader-response criticism of a chosen short story.
What is reader response criticism?
As a literary criticism, reader response criticism considers readers’ reactions to literature as vital to interpreting the meaning of the text. However, reader-response criticism can take a number of different approaches. A critic deploying reader-response theory can use a psychoanalytic lens, a feminists lens, or even a structuralist lens. What these different lenses have in common when using a reader response approach is they maintain “… that what a text is cannot be separated from what it does” (Tyson 154).
Tyson explains that “…reader-response theorists share two beliefs:
- that the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature, and
- that readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature” (154)
In this way, reader-response theory shares common ground with some of the deconstructionists discussed in the Post-structural area when they talk about “the death of the author,” or her displacement as the (author)itarian figure in the text.
Characteristics of Reader-response criticism
- Reader response criticism places strong emphasis on the reader’s role in producing the meaning of a literary work,
- It is in some senses an opposite approach from that of formalism,
- Whereas formalists treat meaning as objectively inherent in the text, in reader response criticism, the text has no meaning until it is read by a reader who creates the meaning.
- Unlike the formalist critical approach, this type of literary criticism insists that works are not universal, that is, that they will not always mean more or less the same thing to readers everywhere.
The reader, to a large extent, recreate the text in his image. ~ Norman Holland
Typical questions to be asked when reading as Reader-response critic
- How does the interaction of text and reader create meaning?
- What does a phrase-by-phrase analysis of a short literary text, or a key portion of a longer text, tell us about the reading experience prestructured by (built into) that text?
- Do the sounds/shapes of the words as they appear on the page or how they are spoken by the reader enhance or change the meaning of the word/work?
- How might we interpret a literary text to show that the reader’s response is, or is analogous to, the topic of the story?
- What does the body of criticism published about a literary text suggest about the critics who interpreted that text and/or about the reading experience produced by that text? (Tyson 191)
Advantages of using reader-response criticism
- Reader-response criticism allows readers to interpret the text in various ways.
- Allows readers to bring personality traits, memories of the past and present experiences to the text.
- Forces the readers to look past the words of the text, and search for deeper meanings.
- Allows teachers to connect with their students on a more personal level.
- Allows readers to see different perspectives of others while reading.
- Reader-response criticism focuses on the importance of the reader and their individual response to the text.
Disadvantages of using reader-reader criticism
- Reader-response criticism provides a much skewed outlook on different works of literature.
- One brings their personal interpretations to the text rather than examining the meaning that the other created.
- The reader creates a narrow connection to the text, rather than looking at different perspectives (connections to the world, connections to other texts).
- Students may be unclear of how to respond correctly because they are unsure of the teachers own perspective, and how they will react to their own response.
How to write a reader-response criticism
When using reader response criticism as a tool of analysis, you may:
- write about how the author evokes a particular reaction in you as the reader;
- what features of your own identity influence you in creating your interpretation; and
- how another reader in a different situation might interpret the work differently.
Sample illustration of a reader-response criticism:
In reading The Parable Of The Prodigal Son in the New Testament, different readers are likely to have different responses.
Someone who has lived a fairly straight and narrow life and who does not feel like he has been rewarded for it is likely to associate with the older brother of the parable and sympathize with his opposition to the celebration over the prodigal son’s return. Someone with a more checkered past would probably approach the parable with more sympathy for the younger brother. As a parent who had had difficulties with a rebellious child would probably focus on the father, and, depending on his or her experience, might see the father’s unconditional acceptance of the prodigal as either good and merciful or as unwise and overindulgent.
While the parable might disturb some, it could elicit a feeling of relief from others.
- Dobie, Ann B. (2009). Theory into Practice: An Intro to Literary Criticism. Australia: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
- Fry, Paul H. (2013). Theory of Literature. New Haven: Yale University Press.
- Habib, M. R. (2011). A History of Literary Criticism: From Plato to Present. UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Show Comments Hide Comments
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .
Seamless Theme Starry Food , made by Altervista
Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.
Reader-response suggests that the role of the reader is essential to the meaning of a text, for only in the reading experience does the literary work come alive. For example, in Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818), the monster doesn’t exist, so to speak, until the reader reads Frankenstein and reanimates it to life, becoming a co-creator of the text.
- why you like or dislike the text;
- explain whether you agree or disagree with the author;
- identify the text’s purpose; and
- critique the text.
Write as a Scholar
Criticize with examples.
- Is the text racist?
- Does the text unreasonably puts down things, such as religion, or groups of people, such as women or adolescents, conservatives or democrats, etc?
- Does the text include factual errors or outright lies? It is too dark and despairing? Is it falsely positive?
- Is the text poorly written?
- Does it contain too much verbal “fat”?
- Is it too emotional or too childish?
- Does it have too many facts and figures?
- Are there typos or other errors in the text?
- Do the ideas wander around without making a point?
In each of these cases, do not simply criticize, but give examples. As a beginning scholar, be cautious of criticizing any text as “confusing” or “crazy,” since readers might simply conclude that you are too ignorant or slow to understand and appreciate it.
The Structure of a Reader-Response Essay
- title of the work to which you are responding;
- the author; and
- the main thesis of the text.
- What does the text have to do with you, personally, and with your life (past, present or future)? It is not acceptable to write that the text has NOTHING to do with you, since just about everything humans can write has to do in some way with every other human.
- How much does the text agree or clash with your view of the world, and what you consider right and wrong? Use several quotes as examples of how it agrees with and supports what you think about the world, about right and wrong, and about what you think it is to be human. Use quotes and examples to discuss how the text disagrees with what you think about the world and about right and wrong.
- What did you learn, and how much were your views and opinions challenged or changed by this text, if at all? Did the text communicate with you? Why or why not? Give examples of how your views might have changed or been strengthened (or perhaps, of why the text failed to convince you, the way it is). Please do not write “I agree with everything the author wrote,” since everybody disagrees about something, even if it is a tiny point. Use quotes to illustrate your points of challenge, or where you were persuaded, or where it left you cold.
- How well does the text address things that you, personally, care about and consider important to the world? How does it address things that are important to your family, your community, your ethnic group, to people of your economic or social class or background, or your faith tradition? If not, who does or did the text serve? Did it pass the “Who cares?” test? Use quotes from the text to illustrate.
- What can you praise about the text? What problems did you have with it? Reading and writing “critically” does not mean the same thing as “criticizing,” in everyday language (complaining or griping, fault-finding, nit-picking). Your “critique” can and should be positive and praise the text if possible, as well as pointing out problems, disagreements and shortcomings.
- How well did you enjoy the text (or not) as entertainment or as a work of art? Use quotes or examples to illustrate the quality of the text as art or entertainment. Of course, be aware that some texts are not meant to be entertainment or art: a news report or textbook, for instance, may be neither entertaining or artistic, but may still be important and successful.
- your overall reaction to the text;
- whether you would read something else like this in the future;
- whether you would read something else by this author; and
- if would you recommend read this text to someone else and why.
- In reader-response, the reader is essential to the meaning of a text for they bring the text to life.
- The purpose of a reading response is examining, explaining, and defending your personal reaction to a text.
- When writing a reader-response, write as an educated adult addressing other adults or fellow scholars.
- As a beginning scholar, be cautious of criticizing any text as “boring,” “crazy,” or “dull.” If you do criticize, base your criticism on the principles and form of the text itself.
- The challenge of a reader-response is to show how you connected with the text.
Reader-Response Essay Example
To Misread or to Rebel: A Woman’s Reading of “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”
At its simplest, reading is “an activity that is guided by the text; this must be processed by the reader who is then, in turn, affected by what he has processed” (Iser 63). The text is the compass and map, the reader is the explorer. However, the explorer cannot disregard those unexpected boulders in the path which he or she encounters along the journey that are not written on the map. Likewise, the woman reader does not come to the text without outside influences. She comes with her experiences as a woman—a professional woman, a divorcée, a single mother. Her reading, then, is influenced by her experiences. So when she reads a piece of literature like “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” by James Thurber, which paints a highly negative picture of Mitty’s wife, the woman reader is forced to either misread the story and accept Mrs. Mitty as a domineering, mothering wife, or rebel against that picture and become angry at the society which sees her that way.
Due to pre-existing sociosexual standards, women see characters, family structures, even societal structures from the bottom as an oppressed group rather than from a powerful position on the top, as men do. As Louise Rosenblatt states: a reader’s “tendency toward identification [with characters or events] will certainly be guided by our preoccupations at the time we read. Our problems and needs may lead us to focus on those characters and situations through which we may achieve the satisfactions, the balanced vision, or perhaps merely the unequivocal motives unattained in our own lives” (38). A woman reader who feels chained by her role as a housewife is more likely to identify with an individual who is oppressed or feels trapped than the reader’s executive husband is. Likewise, a woman who is unable to have children might respond to a story of a child’s death more emotionally than a woman who does not want children. However, if the perspective of a woman does not match that of the male author whose work she is reading, a woman reader who has been shaped by a male-dominated society is forced to misread the text, reacting to the “words on the page in one way rather than another because she operates according to the same set of rules that the author used to generate them” (Tompkins xvii). By accepting the author’s perspective and reading the text as he intended, the woman reader is forced to disregard her own, female perspective. This, in turn, leads to a concept called “asymmetrical contingency,” described by Iser as that which occurs “when Partner A gives up trying to implement his own behavioral plan and without resistance follows that of Partner B. He adapts himself to and is absorbed by the behavioral strategy of B” (164). Using this argument, it becomes clear that a woman reader (Partner A) when faced with a text written by a man (Partner B) will most likely succumb to the perspective of the writer and she is thus forced to misread the text. Or, she could rebel against the text and raise an angry, feminist voice in protest.
James Thurber, in the eyes of most literary critics, is one of the foremost American humorists of the 20th century, and his short story “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” is believed to have “ushered in a major [literary] period … where the individual can maintain his self … an appropriate way of assaulting rigid forms” (Elias 432). The rigid form in Thurber’s story is Mrs. Mitty, the main character’s wife. She is portrayed by Walter Mitty as a horrible, mothering nag. As a way of escaping her constant griping, he imagines fantastic daydreams which carry him away from Mrs. Mitty’s voice. Yet she repeatedly interrupts his reveries and Mitty responds to her as though she is “grossly unfamiliar, like a strange woman who had yelled at him in the crowd” (286). Not only is his wife annoying to him, but she is also distant and removed from what he cares about, like a stranger. When she does speak to him, it seems reflective of the way a mother would speak to a child. For example, Mrs. Mitty asks, “‘Why don’t you wear your gloves? Have you lost your gloves?’ Walter Mitty reached in a pocket and brought out the gloves. He put them on, but after she had turned and gone into the building and he had driven on to a red light, he took them off again” (286). Mrs. Mitty’s care for her husband’s health is seen as nagging to Walter Mitty, and the audience is amused that he responds like a child and does the opposite of what Mrs. Mitty asked of him. Finally, the clearest way in which Mrs. Mitty is portrayed as a burdensome wife is at the end of the piece when Walter, waiting for his wife to exit the store, imagines that he is facing “the firing squad; erect and motionless, proud and disdainful, Walter Mitty the Undefeated, inscrutable to the last” (289). Not only is Mrs. Mitty portrayed as a mothering, bothersome hen, but she is ultimately described as that which will be the death of Walter Mitty.
Mrs. Mitty is a direct literary descendant of the first woman to be stereotyped as a nagging wife, Dame Van Winkle, the creation of the American writer, Washington Irving. Likewise, Walter Mitty is a reflection of his dreaming predecessor, Rip Van Winkle, who falls into a deep sleep for a hundred years and awakes to the relief of finding out that his nagging wife has died. Judith Fetterley explains in her book, The Resisting Reader, how such a portrayal of women forces a woman who reads “Rip Van Winkle” and other such stories “to find herself excluded from the experience of the story” so that she “cannot read the story without being assaulted by the negative images of women it presents” (10). The result, it seems, is for a woman reader of a story like “Rip Van Winkle” or “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty” to either be excluded from the text, or accept the negative images of women the story puts forth. As Fetterley points out, “The consequence for the female reader is a divided self. She is asked to identify with Rip and against herself, to scorn the amiable sex and act just like it, to laugh at Dame Van Winkle and accept that she represents ‘woman,’ to be at once both repressor and repressed, and ultimately to realize that she is neither” (11). Thus, a woman is forced to misread the text and accept “woman as villain.” as Fetterley names it, or rebel against both the story and its message.
So how does a woman reader respond to this portrayal of Mrs. Mitty? If she were to follow Iser’s claim, she would defer to the male point of view presented by the author. She would sympathize with Mitty, as Thurber wants us to do, and see domineering women in her own life that resemble Mrs. Mitty. She may see her mother and remember all the times that she nagged her about zipping up her coat against the bitter winter wind. Or the female reader might identify Mrs. Mitty with her controlling mother-in-law and chuckle at Mitty’s attempts to escape her control, just as her husband tries to escape the criticism and control of his own mother. Iser’s ideal female reader would undoubtedly look at her own position as mother and wife and would vow to never become such a domineering person. This reader would probably also agree with a critic who says that “Mitty has a wife who embodies the authority of a society in which the husband cannot function” (Lindner 440). She could see the faults in a relationship that is too controlled by a woman and recognize that a man needs to feel important and dominant in his relationship with his wife. It could be said that the female reader would agree completely with Thurber’s portrayal of the domineering wife. The female reader could simply misread the text.
Or, the female reader could rebel against the text. She could see Mrs. Mitty as a woman who is trying to do her best to keep her husband well and cared for. She could see Walter as a man with a fleeting grip on reality who daydreams that he is a fighter pilot, a brilliant surgeon, a gun expert, or a military hero, when he actually is a poor driver with a slow reaction time to a green traffic light. The female reader could read critics of Thurber who say that by allowing his wife to dominate him, Mitty becomes a “non-hero in a civilization in which women are winning the battle of the sexes” (Hasley 533) and become angry that a woman’s fight for equality is seen merely as a battle between the sexes. She could read Walter’s daydreams as his attempt to dominate his wife, since all of his fantasies center on him in traditional roles of power. This, for most women, would cause anger at Mitty (and indirectly Thurber) for creating and promoting a society which believes that women need to stay subservient to men. From a male point of view, it becomes a battle of the sexes. In a woman’s eyes, her reading is simply a struggle for equality within the text and in the world outside that the text reflects.
It is certain that women misread “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.” I did. I found myself initially wishing that Mrs. Mitty would just let Walter daydream in peace. But after reading the story again and paying attention to the portrayal of Mrs. Mitty, I realized that it is imperative that women rebel against the texts that would oppress them. By misreading a text, the woman reader understands it in a way that is conventional and acceptable to the literary world. But in so doing, she is also distancing herself from the text, not fully embracing it or its meaning in her life. By rebelling against the text, the female reader not only has to understand the point of view of the author and the male audience, but she also has to formulate her own opinions and create a sort of dialogue between the text and herself. Rebelling against the text and the stereotypes encourages an active dialogue between the woman and the text which, in turn, guarantees an active and (most likely) angry reader response. I became a resisting reader.
Elias, Robert H. “James Thurber: The Primitive, the Innocent, and the Individual.” Contemporary Literary Criticism . Vol. 5. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Gale Research, 1980. 431–32. Print.
Fetterley, Judith. The Resisting Reader . Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1978. Print.
Hasley, Louis. “James Thurber: Artist in Humor.” Contemporary Literary Criticism . Vol. 11. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Gale Research, 1980. 532–34. Print.
Iser, Wolfgang. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1981. Print.
Lindner, Carl M. “Thurber’s Walter Mitty—The Underground American Hero.” Contemporary Literary Criticism . Vol. 5. Ed. Dedria Bryfonski. Detroit: Gale Research, 1980. 440–41. Print.
Rosenblatt, Louise M. Literature as Exploration . New York: MLA, 1976. Print.
Thurber, James. “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty.” Literature: An Introduction to Critical Reading . Ed. William Vesterman. Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, 1993. 286–89. Print.
Tompkins, Jane P. “An Introduction to Reader-Response Criticism.” Reader Response Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism . Ed. Jane P. Tompkins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1980. ix-xxvi. Print.
LICENSES AND ATTRIBUTIONS CC LICENSED CONTENT, ORIGINAL and REMIXED
- Putting It Together: Defining Characteristics of Romantic Literature. Authored by : Anne EidenMuller & Lumen Learning. License : CC BY: Attribution
- Composition and Literature (2021)-License: CC BY: Attribution
Composition and Literature Copyright © 2021 by hiattb; Corbin Bond; Ramon Jones; Bryan Hiatt; and Julia Showalter is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.