Though literary theorists have increasingly placed the reader at the center of the literary transaction, the expert or ideal reader has received far more attention than the naive real reader often found in ordinary settings. This neglect is usually justified with the argument that, being outside the institutional framework of criticism and literary study, the naive reader is likely to respond in a mode of anarchy, of mere subjective chaos. This article reports the results of a project showing that when such readers are encouraged to be self-reliant and creative, their responses are far more likely to be systematic and coherent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
IserW., The Implied Reader, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1975.
2.
WellekR. and WarrenA., Theory of Literature, Harcourt, Brace, and World, New York, 1956.
3.
JaussH. R., Aesthetic Experience and Literary Hermeneutics, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1982.
4.
BleichD., Subjective Criticism, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1978.
5.
CullerJ., Structuralist Poetics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1975.
6.
IserW., The Act of Reading, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1978.
7.
HollandN. N., 5 Readers Reading, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1975.
8.
de BeaugrandeR., Critical Discourse: A Survey of Literary Theorists, Ablex, Norwood, New Jersey, 1987.
9.
FiedlerL. A., An End to Innocence, Stein and Day, New York, 1971.
10.
CullerJ., The Pursuit of Signs, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1981.
11.
FryeN., Anatomy of Criticism, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1973.
12.
de ManP., Allegories of Reading, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1979.
13.
JamesonF., The Prisonhouse of Language, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1972.
14.
de BeaugrandeR., Poetry and the Ordinary Reader: A Study of Immediate Responses, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 3, pp. 1–21, 1985.
15.
PapertS., Mindstorms, Basic Books, New York, 1980.
