Admittedly, it was late when I sat down to read the articles on New Criticism and Reader-Response, but I have a background in literary theory and criticism (although it has been several years since I have practically applied any of this background), yet these were very difficult articles to follow – insert tab A into slot Z – wait a minute where is slot Z – oh it is hidden in the Eliot paragraphs.

It also made me remember my Modern Poetry seminar class. I had a professor who was a New Critic, and although it pained me, I did learn a great deal about the practice of close reading from him. However, I did have many headaches upon leaving his class because all of the butting of heads we did over interpretations of poems read/discussed. In fact, his class more than any other turned me off of the idea that there is one single solitary interpretation of a poem or prose for that matter (yes, even nonfiction).  This may seem contradictory – taught me a lot about close reading – turned me off of single interpretations. Well, at one point in my life, I fancied myself a poet – and as such I took many poetry/writing workshops. It was in one of these workshops that I first heard someone’s recycled words (because in actuality there are on original words or stories – we’re just telling the same story differently – right?) that as a poet/writer as soon as you put your work out there – you lose all control of meaning – people are going to apply their own meaning even if it is not your intended meaning. How can we as poets/writers stop this? We can’t, but we can infuse our work with diliberate choices to help guide our readers to our intended meaning, but ultimately they may not reach that meaning, and may reach an equally significant meaning we hadn’t thought of. I feel Crosman brings this to light in his discussion of Pound’s In a Station of the Metro.

What can differentiate a poems meaning? Well, our experience will definitely influence our understanding of a literary work as well as our beliefs. How many wars have been fought over interpretations of the Bible? Without an understanding or at least a little bit of knowledge of Homer’s Odyssey, or that Ulysses is the Roman equivalent would they come away with the same interpretation of Tennyson’s poem? I do not think so, especially considering some of the specfic vocabulary choices like lees(7).

For me, all of this points to a more reader as meaning maker approach. However, I still feel that there are some gaps in the article on Reader-Response theory because I felt like it was saying that an interpretation is only as good as the interpreter’s interpretation fits with his/her groups intretative guidelines. My feelings are that these guidelines must not be static and should change depending on what we are reading and when in our lives we are reading.

 Just a couple of comments because my school’s firewall will not let me post comments to other’s posts:

Renee – I agree that questions in the book are of little more value than elementary recall and paraphrase. However, textbook makers are publisihing for a large audience and are limited in their knowledge of the knowledge of individual teachers and/or students. I typically use them as starting points to get the discussion rolling. However, as Edith mentioned in class some textbooks include those open ended questions (like the Norton – in our discussion about Cathedral) with no answers – better questions – but sometimes more frustrating.

Edith – Your comment about the meaning being created between the writer and reader – I agree, but what about cases like Emily Dickinson who ‘apparently’ wrote for only herself? We as readers find a great deal of meaning in her poems, but when no audience is indicated how is the meaning created? More questions than answers – isn’t that always the case.

Franciso – There is a certain allure to having only 1 right answer – I have several students who will attest to this fact.