Booth and Chatman are strictly concerned with locutionary issues, if I
can stretch Speech-Act theory in a metaphorical manner to speak of their
Jeff Staley writes: Yes, I think you are on the right track here--though I
think Booth's implied reader reaches over into illocutionary issues more so
The fact of the matter
the whole issue of the 'implied reader' is loaded with narratological
what happens while we read.
Yeah, in my "Reading with a PAssion" I discard the term for "encoded
reader," then discard that term for a critical autobiographical reader
I am reminded of a moment of honesty by Stanley Fish in his book, Is There a
Text in this Class?, when he asks; Who is the implied reader? And he
answers, "Why, it is me!" Perhaps, he
should have named it, "Is There A Fish in this Text"! Booth's implied
reader is rhetorical concerns dressed up in narratological garb. Iser's
implied reader is phenomenological concerns dressed up in narratological
garb. Chatman's implied reader is Booth's, Genettes' and Prince's concerns
dressed up in narratological garb.
Nicely put, Gary.
Competency is always, therefore, a hard thing to define
and must remain open. It requires humility and honesty by the interpreter.
So, how do these issues relate back to the Johannine reader's? How
fictional or autobiographical do they end up to be?