Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [John_Lit] Readers

Expand Messages
  • Staley, Jeffrey
    Ross Saunders writes: The only reader was the one appointed to read the text aloud, and the only listener was those who had gathered on the Lord s Day to
    Message 1 of 17 , Nov 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Ross Saunders writes:
      The only 'reader' was the one appointed to read the text aloud, and the
      only 'listener' was those who had gathered on the Lord's Day to worship
      and be taught in their faith.

      Jeff Staley writes:

      Probably most often, yes. But I am cursed with a wilder historical
      imagination than you, I guess, and can envisage many more "only
      readers/listeners" than this. "Only" is a pretty exclusivistic term!
      --

      The notion that any significant number of people would take a
      scroll/book home and read it to themselves is ludicrous in the extreme.

      Jeff Staley writes:

      I, for one, was not meaning to imply privatized reading as a norm in the
      ancient Mediterranean world. Only that our attempts to describe "first
      readers" is as much a fiction/heuristic device as "implied readers." We we
      use them both for hermeneutical ends. The end result of both is that the FG
      functions as a living text in communities today--these terms really have
      significance only in so far as they function as means to make the FG
      meaning-ful today.

      ---
      As any history of reading will tell you, silent reading of texts/books
      is very recent, at the most not more than five hundred years old.

      Jeff Staley writes:

      Didn't Ambrose read silently? And Augustine was intrigued by this
      phenomenon? Or am I wrong?

      ---
      But even then, private reading of these texts was almost unknown, except by
      church teachers etc.

      Jeff Staley writes:

      I agree, since only about 5-10% of the population could read.

      ---

      Once Jesus started on that text, I see him look round at
      the congregation and recite it from memory, probably having reflected on
      it in the wilderness.


      Jeff Staley writes:

      Personally, I seriously doubt that Jesus could read at all. I take this
      story in Luke 4 as a purely Lukan construction--an attempt to raise Jesus up
      to the social status of Paul (whose social status wasn't very high, I grant
      you, but clearly Paul could read and write).

      ----
      How do we account for the layers of stimulus-response going on here?
      'Implied readers', 'ideal readers',
      'narrator', 'narratee'--none of these systems of interpretation can
      explain the link between the author/s of the text, the reader-aloud and
      the listeners.

      Jeff Staley writes:

      I agree, completely. But we don't have any record of the "layers of
      stimulus-response" for FG or Luke-Acts. All we have are "reconstructed
      readers" based upon our reading of the text.
    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
      ... That s also how I understood the passage in Augustine s Confessions . Jeffery Hodges ===== Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges Hanshin University
      Message 2 of 17 , Nov 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Ross Saunders wrote:

        > > As any history of reading will tell you, silent
        > > reading of texts/books is very recent, at the most
        > > not more than five hundred years old.

        Jeff Staley wrote:

        > Didn't Ambrose read silently? And Augustine was
        > intrigued by this phenomenon? Or am I wrong?

        That's also how I understood the passage in
        Augustine's "Confessions".

        Jeffery Hodges

        =====
        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
        447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
        Yangsandong 411
        South Korea

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
        http://shopping.yahoo.com
      • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
        ... While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 3, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Ross Saunders wrote:

          > They knew that somebody would stand up in an assembly of the faithful
          > and read out some of their words to those listening.
          > The only 'reader' was the one appointed to read the text
          > aloud, and the
          > only 'listener' was those who had gathered on the Lord's Day
          > to worship
          > and be taught in their faith.

          While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure
          that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
          there other venues (e.g. private gatherings, synagogues, symposia, etc) that
          might have been envisaged as possible situations in which a document may
          have been read? I think this possible reconstruction of the audience of a
          text is crucial, and I am not at all sure that it is always a church
          setting, let alone a liturgical type (i.e. worship) setting.

          > The FG was written for those believers in a particular
          > community. We may
          > differ on where that community may have been. But the
          > author/s designed
          > it for that community, and knew it would be read aloud and studied
          > within that community's worship environment.

          And here is where I am really having some trouble with both the FG and other
          gospels. Why do we assume that a gospel was written to a specific
          community? Can we be that sure? Here I want to echo also what Ken Litwak
          wrote in his recent post. It is possible, is it not, that John as well as
          the other gospels were written to be distributed and read in more than one
          setting, more than one community? When I read John's statement of
          intention, in 20:30-31, it sounds more evangelistic than sectarian. What if
          we took him seriously -- does that change the way we read the FG? It seems
          we have come under the sway of those who suggest a sectarian community, a
          narrow group, a Johannane school, etc. But I am not convinced (and I would
          welcome suggestions on where the text mandates such a reading) that John was
          written only for a specific community and meant to be read within that
          community.

          > I want to make this very clear: I am not in any way denying
          > the value of
          > some of these methods of interpretation. I have found them valuable in
          > reading modern texts. The course in semiology I did as part
          > of my first
          > degree was invaluable and a real eye-opener. But as a way of
          > getting at
          > the connection between the author/s of the FG and the first
          > community of
          > listeners, I find it seriously flawed. It presupposes a culture of
          > reading and writing that did not come into being for several hundred
          > years.

          Now what I am suggesting is not a private reading, a private interpretation.
          But I do want to problematize the Johannine community or any narrow
          community orientation for the 4G, and indeed for all the gospels. Returning
          the beginning of this thread, is the implied reader of this gospel
          necessarily (a) already a Christian, (b) a sectarian Johannine christian,
          (c) such that the gospel is meant to affirm and strengthen the peculiar
          approach of that group. Can we not imagine the implied reader to be a
          broader fictional construct on the part of the writer, that is a group of
          readers who have a variety of views toward Jesus, perhaps even "Jews" who
          have questions about the nature of this Jesus and therefore might be
          implicated and examine their own beliefs in light of the totality of the
          story?

          Mark A. Matson
          Academic Dean, Milligan College
          http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


          >
        • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
          ... While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 3, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Ross Saunders wrote:

            > They knew that somebody would stand up in an assembly of the faithful
            > and read out some of their words to those listening.
            > The only 'reader' was the one appointed to read the text
            > aloud, and the
            > only 'listener' was those who had gathered on the Lord's Day
            > to worship
            > and be taught in their faith.

            While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure
            that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
            there other venues (e.g. private gatherings, synagogues, symposia, etc) that
            might have been envisaged as possible situations in which a document may
            have been read? I think this possible reconstruction of the audience of a
            text is crucial, and I am not at all sure that it is always a church
            setting, let alone a liturgical type (i.e. worship) setting.

            > The FG was written for those believers in a particular
            > community. We may
            > differ on where that community may have been. But the
            > author/s designed
            > it for that community, and knew it would be read aloud and studied
            > within that community's worship environment.

            And here is where I am really having some trouble with both the FG and other
            gospels. Why do we assume that a gospel was written to a specific
            community? Can we be that sure? Here I want to echo also what Ken Litwak
            wrote in his recent post. It is possible, is it not, that John as well as
            the other gospels were written to be distributed and read in more than one
            setting, more than one community? When I read John's statement of
            intention, in 20:30-31, it sounds more evangelistic than sectarian. What if
            we took him seriously -- does that change the way we read the FG? It seems
            we have come under the sway of those who suggest a sectarian community, a
            narrow group, a Johannane school, etc. But I am not convinced (and I would
            welcome suggestions on where the text mandates such a reading) that John was
            written only for a specific community and meant to be read within that
            community.

            > I want to make this very clear: I am not in any way denying
            > the value of
            > some of these methods of interpretation. I have found them valuable in
            > reading modern texts. The course in semiology I did as part
            > of my first
            > degree was invaluable and a real eye-opener. But as a way of
            > getting at
            > the connection between the author/s of the FG and the first
            > community of
            > listeners, I find it seriously flawed. It presupposes a culture of
            > reading and writing that did not come into being for several hundred
            > years.

            Now what I am suggesting is not a private reading, a private interpretation.
            But I do want to problematize the Johannine community or any narrow
            community orientation for the 4G, and indeed for all the gospels. Returning
            the beginning of this thread, is the implied reader of this gospel
            necessarily (a) already a Christian, (b) a sectarian Johannine christian,
            (c) such that the gospel is meant to affirm and strengthen the peculiar
            approach of that group. Can we not imagine the implied reader to be a
            broader fictional construct on the part of the writer, that is a group of
            readers who have a variety of views toward Jesus, perhaps even "Jews" who
            have questions about the nature of this Jesus and therefore might be
            implicated and examine their own beliefs in light of the totality of the
            story?

            Mark A. Matson
            Academic Dean, Milligan College
            http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


            >
          • Joe Gagne
            I would refer you to the Pilots held at the Hanoi Hilton who put together a fairly good new testament from memory. This was tapped out in code through the
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 3, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              I would refer you to the Pilots held at the Hanoi Hilton who put together a
              fairly good
              new testament from memory. This was tapped out in code through the walls with
              different people responsible for portions of the N.T. that they knew. We tend
              to think today that our generation is far ahead of previous people, but I
              believe also that are capabilities today have changed due to the way out
              society communicates.

              Horace Jeffery Hodges wrote:

              > A note of skepticism about some of the claims being
              > made concerning memory in antiquity.
              >
              > There have been a lot of modern studies of memory by
              > modern psychologists and neurologists, and from what I
              > have read of their work, I would be very surprised if
              > it were common for people to remember every word
              > spoken in a lengthy discourse upon a single occasion.
              >
              > Why do I say this? Because it has been shown that most
              > of us have rather limited short-term memories -- I
              > recall (or hope that I do) reading that our short-term
              > memories can hold only 5 to 8 items of information at
              > a time. So, for an individual to remember everything,
              > he or she would have to transfer everything said by
              > the speaker into his or her long-term memory at a
              > rather rapid rate.
              >
              > Now, I realize that people in antiquity had techniques
              > for remembering, and I guess that they had rhetorical
              > devices for speaking in a way to make their words
              > memorable, but I still find unlikely that people could
              > commonly recall every word spoken in a long discourse
              > upon a single occasion.
              >
              > Has anybody tested this assumption in contemporary
              > oral cultures? I would be interested in knowing if my
              > skepticism is misdirected.
              >
              > Jeffery Hodges
              >
              > =====
              > Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
              > Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
              > 447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
              > Yangsandong 411
              > South Korea
              >
              > __________________________________________________
              > Do You Yahoo!?
              > Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
              > http://shopping.yahoo.com
              >
              > SUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > UNSUBSCRIBE: e-mail johannine_literature-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > PROBLEMS?: e-mail johannine_literature-owner@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • Horace Jeffery Hodges
              ... I think that you need to re-read what I wrote, but let me draw your attention to my central point: I would be very surprised if it were common for people
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Joe Gagne wrote:

                > I would refer you to the Pilots held at the Hanoi
                > Hilton who put together a fairly good new testament
                > from memory. This was tapped out in code through the
                > walls with different people responsible for portions
                > of the N.T. that they knew. We tend to think today
                > that our generation is far ahead of previous people,
                > but I believe also that are capabilities today have
                > changed due to the way out society communicates.

                I think that you need to re-read what I wrote, but let
                me draw your attention to my central point:

                "I would be very surprised if it were common for
                people to remember every word spoken in a lengthy
                discourse upon a single occasion."

                Now, if a single pilot had only heard the New
                Testament one time and could reconstruct it from that
                one reading, then I would be most impressed. I am not
                surprised to hear that a group of people who had
                (probably) read the New Testament several times heard
                the New Testament preached upon any number of times
                could collectively have put together a fairly good
                reconstruction from memory.

                Jeffery Hodges

                =====
                Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                Yangsandong 411
                South Korea

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
                http://shopping.yahoo.com
              • Matson, Mark A. (Academic)
                ... While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 4, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  Ross Saunders wrote:

                  > They knew that somebody would stand up in an assembly of the faithful
                  > and read out some of their words to those listening.
                  > The only 'reader' was the one appointed to read the text
                  > aloud, and the
                  > only 'listener' was those who had gathered on the Lord's Day
                  > to worship
                  > and be taught in their faith.

                  While I appreciate that documents were read orally in antiquity, are we sure
                  that the gospels were always written to be read in a church assembly? Are
                  there other venues (e.g. private gatherings, synagogues, symposia, etc) that
                  might have been envisaged as possible situations in which a document may
                  have been read? I think this possible reconstruction of the audience of a
                  text is crucial, and I am not at all sure that it is always a church
                  setting, let alone a liturgical type (i.e. worship) setting.

                  > The FG was written for those believers in a particular
                  > community. We may
                  > differ on where that community may have been. But the
                  > author/s designed
                  > it for that community, and knew it would be read aloud and studied
                  > within that community's worship environment.

                  And here is where I am really having some trouble with both the FG and other
                  gospels. Why do we assume that a gospel was written to a specific
                  community? Can we be that sure? Here I want to echo also what Ken Litwak
                  wrote in his recent post. It is possible, is it not, that John as well as
                  the other gospels were written to be distributed and read in more than one
                  setting, more than one community? When I read John's statement of
                  intention, in 20:30-31, it sounds more evangelistic than sectarian. What if
                  we took him seriously -- does that change the way we read the FG? It seems
                  we have come under the sway of those who suggest a sectarian community, a
                  narrow group, a Johannane school, etc. But I am not convinced (and I would
                  welcome suggestions on where the text mandates such a reading) that John was
                  written only for a specific community and meant to be read within that
                  community.

                  > I want to make this very clear: I am not in any way denying
                  > the value of
                  > some of these methods of interpretation. I have found them valuable in
                  > reading modern texts. The course in semiology I did as part
                  > of my first
                  > degree was invaluable and a real eye-opener. But as a way of
                  > getting at
                  > the connection between the author/s of the FG and the first
                  > community of
                  > listeners, I find it seriously flawed. It presupposes a culture of
                  > reading and writing that did not come into being for several hundred
                  > years.

                  Now what I am suggesting is not a private reading, a private interpretation.
                  But I do want to problematize the Johannine community or any narrow
                  community orientation for the 4G, and indeed for all the gospels. Returning
                  the beginning of this thread, is the implied reader of this gospel
                  necessarily (a) already a Christian, (b) a sectarian Johannine christian,
                  (c) such that the gospel is meant to affirm and strengthen the peculiar
                  approach of that group. Can we not imagine the implied reader to be a
                  broader fictional construct on the part of the writer, that is a group of
                  readers who have a variety of views toward Jesus, perhaps even "Jews" who
                  have questions about the nature of this Jesus and therefore might be
                  implicated and examine their own beliefs in light of the totality of the
                  story?

                  Mark A. Matson
                  Academic Dean, Milligan College
                  http://www.milligan.edu/Administrative/MMatson/personal.htm


                  >
                • Staley, Jeffrey
                  Mark Matson wrote: Can we not imagine the implied reader to be a broader fictional construct on the part of the writer, that is a group of readers who have a
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 4, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mark Matson wrote:

                    Can we not imagine the implied reader to be a
                    broader fictional construct on the part of the writer, that is a group of
                    readers who have a variety of views toward Jesus, perhaps even "Jews" who
                    have questions about the nature of this Jesus and therefore might be
                    implicated and examine their own beliefs in light of the totality of the
                    story?

                    Jeff Staley writes: Yes, I can imagine this, especially when looking at the
                    various characters one finds in FG and the multiplicity of responses to
                    Jesus (e.g., the lame man, blind man, Samaritan woman, Mary and Martha).
                    These characters responses to Jesus are more fully developed than most in
                    Synoptics

                    Jeff
                  • Staley, Jeffrey
                    Just a boring question from me: Is Prince French or American? In starting this thread, I referred to him as French -- based upon the following bibliographical
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 4, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Just a boring question from me:

                      Is Prince French or American? In starting this thread,
                      I referred to him as French -- based upon the
                      following bibliographical entry:

                      I have thought French, but I never tried to verify this.

                      Jeff Staley
                    • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                      How many readers/hearers do we have now? 1) Narratee 2) Implied Reader/Hearer 3) Ideal Reader/Hearer 4) Actual Reader/Hearer Are there any others? I can
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 4, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        How many readers/hearers do we have now?

                        1) Narratee

                        2) Implied Reader/Hearer

                        3) Ideal Reader/Hearer

                        4) Actual Reader/Hearer

                        Are there any others? I can imagine at least one
                        other. Previously, I stated that we hermeneuts are
                        actual readers striving to be ideal readers, but that
                        doesn't quite capture our way of reading -- if I
                        understand "ideal" reader correctly. An Ideal Reader
                        would follow and understand every move made by the
                        writer as the writer intended it. I think that we fit
                        into a different category:

                        5) Critical Reader

                        I suppose that there could be a Critical Hearer, too.
                        Anyway, a Critical Reader would understand more than
                        the writer understood -- in effect, could understand
                        better. What, for example, are Freudian readings but
                        an attempt to do precisely this, i.e., to understand
                        the writer's meaning better than the writer did.

                        Jeffery Hodges

                        =====
                        Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                        Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                        447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                        Yangsandong 411
                        South Korea

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Buy the perfect holiday gifts at Yahoo! Shopping.
                        http://shopping.yahoo.com
                      • Staley, Jeffrey
                        Anyway, if there are phenomenological differences, then this should have implications for reader-response theory. But would it mean the deconstruction of
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 7, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Anyway, if there are phenomenological differences,
                          then this should have implications for reader-response
                          theory. But would it mean the deconstruction of
                          categories like "narratee"? We can still make
                          distinctions among types of "hearers", can't we?
                          Couldn't we have:

                          Ideal Hearer

                          Implied Hearer

                          Addressee

                          Actual Hearer

                          Jeff Staley writes:

                          Jeffery, I do find SOME of these distinctions can be helpful when thinking
                          about narrative. First, however, I think the term narratee is valuable and
                          should be kept--over against the narrator. For example, in Jesus' parable
                          of the Good Samaritan, Jesus is the narrator, the lawyer is clearly the
                          narratee, not the ideal, implied, or actual hearer/reader. Typically, the
                          narratee may or may not function as the implied/ideal hearer/reader. In
                          this case, since we do not know what the lawyer's response was to the
                          Jesus-narrator's "Go and do likewise," we can't be sure how the
                          narratee-character functions from this text alone (we would have to look at
                          all lawyers in Luke-Acts to see what particular ideological point of view is
                          connected with them). Should we assume the implied/ideal hearer/reader
                          should obey Jesus' words regardless of lawyer's response? Probably yes.
                          Should we assume the addressees obeyed? Not at all. We don't have a clue
                          as to their response. Should we assume that actual hearers/readers did/do
                          obey? Depends on who you are talking about.

                          Jeff Staley
                        • Staley, Jeffrey
                          How many readers/hearers do we have now? 1) Narratee 2) Implied Reader/Hearer 3) Ideal Reader/Hearer 4) Actual Reader/Hearer 5) Critical Reader/Hearer I
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 7, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            How many readers/hearers do we have now?

                            1) Narratee

                            2) Implied Reader/Hearer

                            3) Ideal Reader/Hearer

                            4) Actual Reader/Hearer

                            5) Critical Reader/Hearer

                            I suppose that there could be a Critical Hearer, too.
                            Anyway, a Critical Reader would understand more than
                            the writer understood -- in effect, could understand
                            better.


                            jeff Staley writes:
                            these categories are better, Jeffery. I would only want to reiterate, that
                            #1, #4, #5 can also be resistant "readers," that is, objecting, rejecting
                            and revising in response to hearing/reading. #1 and #4 can be stupid,
                            misunderstanding readers/hearers. I trust that whatever #5 means, its
                            objections, critical responses are not based upon stupidity--though this
                            could be a value judgment . . .

                            Jeff Staley
                          • Paul Anderson
                            ... Thanks, Jeff, and there are certainly many sorts of critical readers today. Any sense of how to find overlap between these types, as well as distinctives?
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 7, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              johannine_literature@yahoogroups.com writes:
                              >
                              >How many readers/hearers do we have now?
                              >
                              >1) Narratee
                              >
                              >2) Implied Reader/Hearer
                              >
                              >3) Ideal Reader/Hearer
                              >
                              >4) Actual Reader/Hearer
                              >
                              >5) Critical Reader/Hearer
                              >
                              >I suppose that there could be a Critical Hearer, too.
                              >Anyway, a Critical Reader would understand more than
                              >the writer understood -- in effect, could understand
                              >better.

                              Thanks, Jeff, and there are certainly many sorts of critical readers
                              today. Any sense of how to find overlap between these types, as well as
                              distinctives?

                              Paul Anderson
                            • Staley, Jeffrey
                              Thanks, Jeff, and there are certainly many sorts of critical readers today. Any sense of how to find overlap between these types, as well as distinctives?
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 7, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Thanks, Jeff, and there are certainly many sorts of critical readers
                                today. Any sense of how to find overlap between these types, as well as
                                distinctives?

                                Just an additional note, Paul, when I said that "I would only want to
                                reiterate, that #1, #4, #5 can also be resistant "readers," that is,
                                objecting, rejecting and revising in response to hearing/reading" I would
                                also say that surprise, reconsideration, revising, and objecting" can also
                                be part of the "implied/ideal readers/hearers" repetoire, but that
                                ultimately, when the reading is done, "implied/ideal readers/hearers" are
                                finally "assenting readers/hearers," whereas many real audiences and
                                critical readers can finish the book and reject it; and not be transformed
                                by it in the way the narrative rhetorics "demands/invites."

                                Oh my, I really must get back to grading final exams!

                                jeff Staley


                                Jeff Staley
                              • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                Paul, did you mean to address me (Jeffery) or Jeff (Staley)? I wrote: How many readers/hearers do we have now? 1) Narratee 2) Implied Reader/Hearer 3) Ideal
                                Message 15 of 17 , Dec 7, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Paul, did you mean to address me (Jeffery) or Jeff
                                  (Staley)?

                                  I wrote:

                                  How many readers/hearers do we have now?

                                  1) Narratee

                                  2) Implied Reader/Hearer

                                  3) Ideal Reader/Hearer

                                  4) Actual Reader/Hearer

                                  5) Critical Reader/Hearer

                                  I suppose that there could be a Critical Hearer, too.
                                  Anyway, a Critical Reader would understand more than
                                  the writer understood -- in effect, could understand
                                  better.

                                  You (Paul) asked:

                                  > Thanks, Jeff, and there are certainly many sorts of
                                  > critical readers today. Any sense of how to find
                                  > overlap between these types, as well as
                                  distinctives?

                                  All of them can probably be deconstructed, but that's
                                  not my goal.

                                  There is certainly overlap.

                                  I'd say that an actual reader could be an implied
                                  reader in some cases. A private letter might have only
                                  one implied reader who happens to be the actual
                                  reader.

                                  This actual reader might also strive to be a critical
                                  reader -- striving to understand things that the
                                  writer himself might not have understand.

                                  An ideal reader is an idealization and so would
                                  (probably) never be actualized though some critical
                                  readers might strive for this status.

                                  Could a narratee be any of the others? If the narrator
                                  happens to be the author who happens to be addressing
                                  a real person who happens to be reading the text, I
                                  guess that the various permutations already mentioned
                                  are possible.

                                  Of course, if we want to take the deconstructionist
                                  turn, all readers -- like all writers -- are
                                  idealizations, ideological constructs that attempt to
                                  fix the flux of uncentered and multiple subjects....

                                  Jeffery Hodges

                                  =====
                                  Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                  447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                  Yangsandong 411
                                  South Korea

                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do You Yahoo!?
                                  Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                                  http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                  ... I reply: I was thinking of the Addressee as the equivalent to the Narratee in a dramatic reading of a text. But I m quite willing to stick to
                                  Message 16 of 17 , Dec 9, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I previously wrote:

                                    > > Couldn't we have:

                                    > > Ideal Hearer

                                    > > Implied Hearer

                                    > > Addressee

                                    > > Actual Hearer

                                    Jeff Staley responded:

                                    > Jeffery, I do find SOME of these distinctions can be
                                    > helpful when thinking about narrative. First,
                                    > however, I think the term narratee is valuable and
                                    > should be kept--over against the narrator.

                                    I reply:

                                    I was thinking of the "Addressee" as the equivalent to
                                    the "Narratee" in a dramatic reading of a text. But
                                    I'm quite willing to stick to "Narratee".

                                    Jeffery Hodges

                                    =====
                                    Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                    447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                    Yangsandong 411
                                    South Korea

                                    __________________________________________________
                                    Do You Yahoo!?
                                    Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                                    http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                    ... I reply: I was thinking of the Addressee as the equivalent to the Narratee in a dramatic reading of a text. But I m quite willing to stick to
                                    Message 17 of 17 , Dec 9, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I previously wrote:

                                      > > Couldn't we have:

                                      > > Ideal Hearer

                                      > > Implied Hearer

                                      > > Addressee

                                      > > Actual Hearer

                                      Jeff Staley responded:

                                      > Jeffery, I do find SOME of these distinctions can be
                                      > helpful when thinking about narrative. First,
                                      > however, I think the term narratee is valuable and
                                      > should be kept--over against the narrator.

                                      I reply:

                                      I was thinking of the "Addressee" as the equivalent to
                                      the "Narratee" in a dramatic reading of a text. But
                                      I'm quite willing to stick to "Narratee".

                                      Jeffery Hodges

                                      =====
                                      Assistant Professor Horace Jeffery Hodges
                                      Hanshin University (Korean Theological University)
                                      447-791 Kyunggido Osan-City
                                      Yangsandong 411
                                      South Korea

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do You Yahoo!?
                                      Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
                                      http://greetings.yahoo.com
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.