A Critical Controversy: Reader-Response Theoreticians Opposing New Critics

AWEJ for Translation & Literary Studies, Volume 4, Number4. October  2020                                Pp.43-57
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol4no4.4

Full Paper PDF

 

A Critical Controversy: Reader-Response Theoreticians
Opposing New Critics

 Alanoud Abdulaziz Alghanem
  Department of English Literature, Faculty of Languages
Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

 

 

Abstract:
The present study is theoretically oriented proposing to re-read some major tenets of the New Critics and the reader-response critics in an attempt to reconsider the objective theory of the New Critics to test whether it is sufficient in catering for all aspects of a text. It works via the exploration of both protocols set by a number of the major founders of both theories aiming to reveal the oppositions, commonalities as well as undeclared similarities. The critical controversy will thus be brought to light, in a bid to point out the shortcomings of each approach. Throughout this exploration, the study demonstrates that the ontological approach of the New Critics becomes incomplete and doubtful. It proves that the New Critics’ ‘affective fallacy’ has sprouted the postmodern theory of the reader-response criticism where the reader is no longer a passive recipient, but an active agent who fills in the blanks and formulates meanings. Thus, the study concludes by proving that there are some commonalities between the New Critics and the Reader-response adherents highlighting the triumph of the latter in undermining the New Critics’ objectivity.  The significance of the study lies in adopting the reader-response approach per se in the re-reading of the New Critics’ doctrines where the researcher comes up with new findings that testifies the crucial role of the reader/researcher in the production of new interpretations. The study concludes with some recommendations for further use.
Keywords: Literary criticism, new criticism, objective theory, reader response theory

Cite as:  Alghanem, A.A. (2020). A Critical Controversy: Reader-Response Theoreticians
Opposing New Critics. Arab World English Journal for Translation & Literary Studies 4 (4) 43-57.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awejtls/vol4no4.4

References

Abrams, M. H. (1993). A Glossary of Literary Terms (6th ed.). Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Amer, A. A. (2003). Teaching EFL/ESL literature. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 3(2), 63–73.

Arnold, M. (1970). The Function of Criticism at the Present Time. In Bate, W. J. (ed.), Criticism: The Major Texts (pp. 452-466). San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Barthes, R. (2001). The Death of the Author. In Rice, P., & Waugh, P. (eds.), Modern Literary Theory (pp. 185–189). New York: Oxford University Press.

Benveniste, E. (1971). Problem in General Linguistics. Oxford, Ohio: University of Miami Press.

Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective Criticism. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Bleich, D. (1988). The Subjective Character of Critical Interpretation. In Newton, K. M. (ed.), Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader (pp. 200-203). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bressler, C. E. (1994). An Introduction to Theory and Practice Literary Criticism. New Jersey: Pearson Education

Brooks, C. (1947). The Well-Wrought Urn: Studies in the Structure of Poetry. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Brooks, C. (1972). The Language of Paradox. In Lodge, D. (ed.), 20th Century Literary Criticism (pp. 292–304). London: Longman.

Brooks, C., & Warren, P. (1976). Understanding Poetry (4th ed). New York, United States: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Burke, K. (1967). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action (2nd ed.). Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press.

Burke, S. (1998). The Death and Return of the Author: Criticism and Subjectivity in Barthes, Foucault and Derrida.  Edinburgh:  Edinburgh University Press.

Canary, R. H. (1982). T. S. Eliot: The Poet and His Critics. Chicago, United States: American Library Association.

Culler, J. (1980). Literary Competence. In Tompkins, J. P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism from Structuralism to Post-structuralism (pp. 101–118). London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Eliot, T. S. (1933). The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism. London, United Kingdom: Faber and Faber.

Eliot, T. S. (1972a). The Function of Criticism. In Lodge, D. (ed.), 20th Century Literary Criticism (pp. 77–84). London: Longman.

Eliot, T. S. (1972b). Tradition and the Individual Talent. In Lodge, D. (ed.), 20th Century Literary Criticism (pp. 71–76). London: Longman.

Eliot, Valeri. (1971). The Waste Land: A Facsimile and Transcript of the Original Drafts, including the Annotations of Ezra Pound. Eliot, V. (ed.) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Fish, S. (1980). Literature in the Reader: Affective Stylistics. In Tompkins, J. P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Structuralism to Post-structuralism (pp.70-100). London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fish, S. (1988). Interpreting the Variorum. In Newton, K. M. (ed.), Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader (pp. 203–209). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Holland, N. (1968). The Dynamic of Literary Response. New York: Oxford University Press.

Holland, N. (1975). Five Readers Reading. New Heaven and London: Yale University Press.

Holland, N. (1980). Unity Identity Text Self. In Tompkins, J. P. (ed.), Reader Response Criticism: From Structuralism to Post-structuralism (pp. 118–132). London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Holub, R. (1984). Reception Theory: a Critical Introduction. London, New York: Methuen.

Iser. W (1988). Indeterminacy and the Reader’s Response. In Newton, K. M.  (ed.), Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader (pp. 195-199). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Iser, W. (1978). The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. London: John Hopkins University Press.

Jauss, H. R. (1988). Literary History as a Challenge to Literary Theory. In Newton, K. M. (ed.), Twentieth Century Literary Theory: A Reader (pp. 189–194). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Justman, S. (2010). Bibliotherapy: Literature as exploration reconsidered. Academic Questions, 23(1), 125-135.

Lentricchia, F. (1980). After the New Criticism. Chicago, United States: University of Chicago Press.

Mills, S. (1997). Discourse. London: Routledge.

Rabinowitz, P. J. (1989). Whirl without End: Audience-Oriented Criticism. In Atkins, D. & Morrow, L. (eds.), Contemporary Literary Theory (pp. 81–95). Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Rejan, A. (2017). Reconciling Rosenblatt and the New Critics: The Quest for an” Experienced Understanding” of Literature. English Education, 50(1), 10-41.

Richards, I. A. (1929). Practical criticism: A study of critical judgment. London: K. Paul, Trench, & Trubner.

Richards, I. A. (1972a). The Two Uses of Language. In Lodge, D. (ed.), 20th Century Literary Criticism (pp. 111–114). London: Longman.

Richards, I. A. (1972b). Communication and the Artist. In Lodge, D. (ed.), 20th Century Literary Criticism (pp. 106–111). London: Longman.

Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. London: Southern Illinois University Press.

Said, E. W. (1983). The world, the text, and the critic. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Scholes, R. (1985). Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Selden, R., Widdson, P., & Brooker, P. (2005). A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Criticism. Pearson Education LTD.

Tompkins, J. P. (Ed.). (1980). Reader Response Criticism: from Structuralism to Post-structuralism. London: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Yang, A. (2002). Science fiction in the EFL class. Language Culture and Curriculum, 15(1), 50-60.

123total visits,4visits today