From the beginning of time, mankind has created various forms of art. Literature as one of its significant forms has produced numerous works of art throughout different eras. This necessarily led to the advent of criticism which sought to read and interpret literary works and to derive meaning from ...
From the beginning of time, mankind has created various forms of art. Literature as one of its significant forms has produced numerous works of art throughout different eras. This necessarily led to the advent of criticism which sought to read and interpret literary works and to derive meaning from them. ‘Reader-Response Criticism’, which emerged in the 1960s, was concerned not only with studies of the text itself, but also with discussions of textual interaction. The preexisting criticism before ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ was text-centered criticism. Critics and readers were interested in the text itself, the author, and the background of its creation. With the decline of ‘New Criticism’ in which the intention of the author was considered as corresponding to the text, the reader started to become a dominant part. Being closely related to psychology, this ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ has contributed to the progress of experimental psychology and psychoanalysis, and had influence on film, visual arts, and other forms of art. This thesis attempts to investigate ‘Reader-Response Criticism’, focusing on the ‘Holy Family’ of Stanley Fish, Wolfgang Iser, and Norman Holland who are thought to be the most central figures in ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ theory. Fish, who laid emphasis on the experience in reading, made it clear that the text and the reader were integrated and subordinated to the concept of an ‘interpretive community’ without priority, thus that the meaning cannot be created through either of them alone. Although the idea that the meaning generated in the course of reading belongs neither to the reader nor the text coincides with Iser's, Iser's theory is differentiated from Fisher's in that he advocates the ‘bi-active criticism’ which suggests that the meaning is created from the interaction between the text and the reader. According to Holland, poetry and discourse always transform the unconscious fantasy, sublimating or repressing it in a way that it evokes pleasure. This seems to be similar to Fish's early phenomenological theory, but Holland is distinct in that he puts more emphasis on psychological defense strategies and fantasy, and excludes historical and formalistic ideas. In addition, it can be said that Holland, among those three theorists, has lifted the reader as a subject to the highest position, by developing the ‘trans-active criticism’ theory. On the other hand, Fish does not approve the reader's autonomy in its entirety, and Iser has some limits because he views the reader merely as a passive agent who only fills gaps in the text. It is analogous to Holland's failure to give the self full freedom to interpret the text, since he finally insistes that every text is a replica of the self. Despite all these problems, we can find the significance of Fish, Iser, and Holland in that they have tried to bring the reader up to the surface, which is a pioneering achievement. Insofar as reading is a creative work which implicates the reader, the text, and the author, ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ would be able to maintain vitality. Thus, ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ will be able to keep extending its reach as a theory in the future as well as for the present.
From the beginning of time, mankind has created various forms of art. Literature as one of its significant forms has produced numerous works of art throughout different eras. This necessarily led to the advent of criticism which sought to read and interpret literary works and to derive meaning from them. ‘Reader-Response Criticism’, which emerged in the 1960s, was concerned not only with studies of the text itself, but also with discussions of textual interaction. The preexisting criticism before ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ was text-centered criticism. Critics and readers were interested in the text itself, the author, and the background of its creation. With the decline of ‘New Criticism’ in which the intention of the author was considered as corresponding to the text, the reader started to become a dominant part. Being closely related to psychology, this ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ has contributed to the progress of experimental psychology and psychoanalysis, and had influence on film, visual arts, and other forms of art. This thesis attempts to investigate ‘Reader-Response Criticism’, focusing on the ‘Holy Family’ of Stanley Fish, Wolfgang Iser, and Norman Holland who are thought to be the most central figures in ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ theory. Fish, who laid emphasis on the experience in reading, made it clear that the text and the reader were integrated and subordinated to the concept of an ‘interpretive community’ without priority, thus that the meaning cannot be created through either of them alone. Although the idea that the meaning generated in the course of reading belongs neither to the reader nor the text coincides with Iser's, Iser's theory is differentiated from Fisher's in that he advocates the ‘bi-active criticism’ which suggests that the meaning is created from the interaction between the text and the reader. According to Holland, poetry and discourse always transform the unconscious fantasy, sublimating or repressing it in a way that it evokes pleasure. This seems to be similar to Fish's early phenomenological theory, but Holland is distinct in that he puts more emphasis on psychological defense strategies and fantasy, and excludes historical and formalistic ideas. In addition, it can be said that Holland, among those three theorists, has lifted the reader as a subject to the highest position, by developing the ‘trans-active criticism’ theory. On the other hand, Fish does not approve the reader's autonomy in its entirety, and Iser has some limits because he views the reader merely as a passive agent who only fills gaps in the text. It is analogous to Holland's failure to give the self full freedom to interpret the text, since he finally insistes that every text is a replica of the self. Despite all these problems, we can find the significance of Fish, Iser, and Holland in that they have tried to bring the reader up to the surface, which is a pioneering achievement. Insofar as reading is a creative work which implicates the reader, the text, and the author, ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ would be able to maintain vitality. Thus, ‘Reader-Response Criticism’ will be able to keep extending its reach as a theory in the future as well as for the present.
주제어
#독자반응비평 Text Reading
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.