![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Because of current events, I've been thinking a lot lately about reader response to texts, and I'm trying to collect together some thoughts about the topic.
Do all readers get to have their own response to a text? Absolutely. Are all responses to a text equally valid? Yes and no. Certainly, I'm willing to say that an honest response has emotional validity. A person is saying how they feel or think, and whether I agree or not, whether it is stated eloquently or not, I have to respect that they've put themselves out there in offering the response in the first place. However, do I think that all responses are critically valid? No. No, I don't.
Before I start, let me say that my response to a text has emotional, and critical components and for me they are twined together. In class, I usually start discussion with emotional response, and build on that to critical analysis. Does that mean I dismiss the emotional? No. However, emotional response is something we tend to be able to do naturally. Critical analysis is not, and that's what I teach.
When I had a student come to me with a reading of Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" that said it was a poem about Santa Claus, I called her on it. That reading is not valid, and she couldn't support it except by telling me passionately that is what she believed was right. I asked her, "Where are the reindeer? Where is the sack of toys? Where is the jolly, fat man in the red suit? And how can the poem be about Santa when it is set on "the longest evening of the year," which is December 21st, not December 24th?"
We were at odds over this for two weeks until she came in with an article she used as inspiration for her journal and presented it to me proudly as validation of her position. It was called something like "Frosty Saint Nick: A Parody." I then asked her if she knew what parody was, defined it for her when she confessed she didn't. She looked between me and the article several times, fidgeted a little, and then asked, "Is that really what parody means?" Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus in the poem. I could roll out hundreds of examples like this one, but I think it's enough to show that all responses are valid.
Where is the writers in all this? What about their response to questions about their texts? Do they get a say? Yes. I believe they get a say just like everyone else. Please pay attention to that last bit. Just like anyone else. Before teaching![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
mcq's lovely, haunted short story "Ancestor Money," I talked to her about it in our office. I said that I had very different responses to it and to its ending, and I told her what they were. She said, "Hmm, that's interesting. Neither one was quite what I was aiming for." So we talked about her intention and before moving on to something else, she said something that stuck with me: "I don't get to tell readers what to make of my stories. I just write them." Wise words. However, while she can't dictate how people interpret her work, she is entitled to discuss her goals and vision for the text.
Now, I would agree that within the first few chapters of a book, I can usually tell if I'm in for a good ride or not. After that time, I can choose to give up, toss the book aside, and dive into something that is more to my liking. I can share my response about the opening of the book and have it be an honest response, but if I haven't read the full work and people call me on that, they have a good point. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong in my assessment, only that my assessment is based on a limited set of data points instead of being based on a complete set. Characters, situations, and events are often radically different at the end of a novel than they are at the beginning. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point in reading the book.
Another story: one semester, I had two classes strongly pressuring me to watch Meet the Parents. They loved it, thought it was the funniest thing ever. I knew it was wildly popular, but I'm picky when it comes to comedy. Still, one night, I was channel surfing and it was on HBO, so I stopped and watched. Within fifteen minutes (possibly sooner), I knew I wasn't going to like the movie or find it funny. I didn't laugh. I didn't even smile. (However, I laughed until I cried during the "Like a Virgin" number in Moulin Rouge, just so you don't think I totally without a sense of humor.) However, I resolutely watched every minute of the film, because I knew, when I went into class, if I dismissed a film they liked, I'd better have a good, solid argument. I knew they wouldn't give me a pass, and I wouldn't give them one if our positions were reversed.
If I just turned off the television or switched to something else, I could have responded, offered a valid emotional point and framed it that way to my class, but I wouldn't have been able to discuss it critically, and I wanted to. I wanted to be able to dissect and debate and discuss. Most of the people I interact with like those things too, but not everyone does. There are people who feel that to challenge their assertions is to challenge their worth, that to cast doubt on their reading is to cast doubt upon their worth as a person. In my graduate school days, my advisor often made female graduate students cry. He didn't try to. He wasn't mean or spiteful, but he was very direct (but not cruel) in telling people what he thought of their ideas and their work. He and I crossed swords a number of times on a number of issues, and I thrived on that sort of exchange. Others didn't. That doesn't make me better or worse than them, just different.
I don't mean to suggest that my style is better or best or that I considered my peers weak or lacking. We responded differently to that sort of questioning. They saw it as a blow to their self worth. They saw it as dismissive. I saw it as the fire that I passed ideas through in order to burn off the dross. I can't say their response wasn't valid for them. However, it wasn't my experience, but just because we didn't share the same response didn't make either one of ours better than the other. Just different.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we expect others to behave as we do, to do what we do, to respond as we do, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. We are forcing expectations on them that they cannot hope to meet. We are setting them up to fail. If they refuse to acknowledge that failure and apologize for it, we can whip out the pitchforks and axes and clubs, we can light our torches and chase the monster to the windmill to burn it alive.
It seems like there are a lot of windmills that are ablaze these days. And that makes me sad.
Do all readers get to have their own response to a text? Absolutely. Are all responses to a text equally valid? Yes and no. Certainly, I'm willing to say that an honest response has emotional validity. A person is saying how they feel or think, and whether I agree or not, whether it is stated eloquently or not, I have to respect that they've put themselves out there in offering the response in the first place. However, do I think that all responses are critically valid? No. No, I don't.
Before I start, let me say that my response to a text has emotional, and critical components and for me they are twined together. In class, I usually start discussion with emotional response, and build on that to critical analysis. Does that mean I dismiss the emotional? No. However, emotional response is something we tend to be able to do naturally. Critical analysis is not, and that's what I teach.
When I had a student come to me with a reading of Robert Frost's "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" that said it was a poem about Santa Claus, I called her on it. That reading is not valid, and she couldn't support it except by telling me passionately that is what she believed was right. I asked her, "Where are the reindeer? Where is the sack of toys? Where is the jolly, fat man in the red suit? And how can the poem be about Santa when it is set on "the longest evening of the year," which is December 21st, not December 24th?"
We were at odds over this for two weeks until she came in with an article she used as inspiration for her journal and presented it to me proudly as validation of her position. It was called something like "Frosty Saint Nick: A Parody." I then asked her if she knew what parody was, defined it for her when she confessed she didn't. She looked between me and the article several times, fidgeted a little, and then asked, "Is that really what parody means?" Yes, Virginia, there is no Santa Claus in the poem. I could roll out hundreds of examples like this one, but I think it's enough to show that all responses are valid.
Where is the writers in all this? What about their response to questions about their texts? Do they get a say? Yes. I believe they get a say just like everyone else. Please pay attention to that last bit. Just like anyone else. Before teaching
mcq's lovely, haunted short story "Ancestor Money," I talked to her about it in our office. I said that I had very different responses to it and to its ending, and I told her what they were. She said, "Hmm, that's interesting. Neither one was quite what I was aiming for." So we talked about her intention and before moving on to something else, she said something that stuck with me: "I don't get to tell readers what to make of my stories. I just write them." Wise words. However, while she can't dictate how people interpret her work, she is entitled to discuss her goals and vision for the text.Now, I would agree that within the first few chapters of a book, I can usually tell if I'm in for a good ride or not. After that time, I can choose to give up, toss the book aside, and dive into something that is more to my liking. I can share my response about the opening of the book and have it be an honest response, but if I haven't read the full work and people call me on that, they have a good point. It doesn't mean that I'm wrong in my assessment, only that my assessment is based on a limited set of data points instead of being based on a complete set. Characters, situations, and events are often radically different at the end of a novel than they are at the beginning. If they weren't, there wouldn't be much point in reading the book.
Another story: one semester, I had two classes strongly pressuring me to watch Meet the Parents. They loved it, thought it was the funniest thing ever. I knew it was wildly popular, but I'm picky when it comes to comedy. Still, one night, I was channel surfing and it was on HBO, so I stopped and watched. Within fifteen minutes (possibly sooner), I knew I wasn't going to like the movie or find it funny. I didn't laugh. I didn't even smile. (However, I laughed until I cried during the "Like a Virgin" number in Moulin Rouge, just so you don't think I totally without a sense of humor.) However, I resolutely watched every minute of the film, because I knew, when I went into class, if I dismissed a film they liked, I'd better have a good, solid argument. I knew they wouldn't give me a pass, and I wouldn't give them one if our positions were reversed.
If I just turned off the television or switched to something else, I could have responded, offered a valid emotional point and framed it that way to my class, but I wouldn't have been able to discuss it critically, and I wanted to. I wanted to be able to dissect and debate and discuss. Most of the people I interact with like those things too, but not everyone does. There are people who feel that to challenge their assertions is to challenge their worth, that to cast doubt on their reading is to cast doubt upon their worth as a person. In my graduate school days, my advisor often made female graduate students cry. He didn't try to. He wasn't mean or spiteful, but he was very direct (but not cruel) in telling people what he thought of their ideas and their work. He and I crossed swords a number of times on a number of issues, and I thrived on that sort of exchange. Others didn't. That doesn't make me better or worse than them, just different.
I don't mean to suggest that my style is better or best or that I considered my peers weak or lacking. We responded differently to that sort of questioning. They saw it as a blow to their self worth. They saw it as dismissive. I saw it as the fire that I passed ideas through in order to burn off the dross. I can't say their response wasn't valid for them. However, it wasn't my experience, but just because we didn't share the same response didn't make either one of ours better than the other. Just different.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we expect others to behave as we do, to do what we do, to respond as we do, we are setting ourselves up for disappointment. We are forcing expectations on them that they cannot hope to meet. We are setting them up to fail. If they refuse to acknowledge that failure and apologize for it, we can whip out the pitchforks and axes and clubs, we can light our torches and chase the monster to the windmill to burn it alive.
It seems like there are a lot of windmills that are ablaze these days. And that makes me sad.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
When it comes to sensitive topics, people will, more often than not, forget that common sense & rationality even exist.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Somehow, I don't feel that is going to be terribly useful in this situation.
From:
no subject
Your memories of your advisor illustrates another point. Perhaps he could have changed his approach to suit each student, but then what about the validity of his viewpoint? Accommodation past a point is to loose your expression.
Throwing out the word 'balance' is easy, but sometimes maintaining your own balance requires saying 'no' or in some other way not being accommodating. What then? It seems so harsh to say 'no' yet it is often necessary.
Interesting, thanks.