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

Readers

Expand Messages
  • Horace Jeffery Hodges
    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 1 of 6 , Dec 2, 2001
      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:

      Raman Selden, "A Reader's Guide to Contemporary
      Literary Theory" (Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press,
      1985), p. 126, refers to the "French original in
      'Poetique' no. 14 (1973), 177-96" of his "Introduction
      to the study of the narratee".

      However, I have also since seen the following
      reference to Prince's ideas:

      Martin McQuillan, "Introduction: There is no such
      thing as reader-response theory", in Julian Wolfreys,
      ed., "Literary Theories: A Reader and Guide" (New
      York: New York University Press, 1999), p. 146, refers
      to "The American Narratologist Gerald Prince".

      So, what is his nationality? Is he French but working
      in an American university?

      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
      Kenneth Litwak writes: In any scenario what is most important, I think, is that they encountered it sequentially, not interpreting John 1 in the light of John
      Message 2 of 6 , Dec 4, 2001
        Kenneth Litwak writes:

        In any scenario what is most important, I think, is that they encountered
        it sequentially, not interpreting John 1 in the light of John 20, because
        they had not gotten that far yet. Perhaps I am missing
        something in this thread?

        Jeff Staley writes: "they encountered it sequentially," this, I think IS
        very important. The dynamics of gospel storytelling and its
        [possible/plausible] effects, is something we have largely lost in our
        historical and/or theological training.

        Jeff Staley
      • Horace Jeffery Hodges
        ... In speaking of readers/hearers, do we mean only naive first-time readers/hearers? Does each of the reader categories that we ve identified characterize a
        Message 3 of 6 , Dec 4, 2001
          Kenneth Litwak writes:

          > In any scenario what is most important, I think, is
          > that they encountered it sequentially, not
          > interpreting John 1 in the light of John 20, because
          > they had not gotten that far yet. Perhaps I am
          > missing something in this thread?

          In speaking of readers/hearers, do we mean only naive
          first-time readers/hearers?

          Does each of the reader categories that we've
          identified characterize a naive first-time reader?

          It seems to me that even the narratee or the implied
          reader could be intended by the writer as more
          sophisticated -- perhaps even one expected to
          interpret John 1 in the light of John 20 on a
          first-time reading because the meaning of John 20 had
          also been conveyed in other ways, e.g., preaching,
          teaching, previous versions of the Johannine
          manuscript, etc.

          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
        • John N. Lupia
          Horace Jeffery Hodges et alia: As I mentioned earlier I had been off list for several weeks and have not caught up with the plethora of postings. However,
          Message 4 of 6 , Dec 4, 2001
            Horace Jeffery Hodges et alia:

            As I mentioned earlier I had been off list for several weeks and
            have not caught up with the plethora of postings. However, Jeff, I
            found you started a thread that persists to this day regarding
            reception theory.

            I don't know if any of the following helps but it is my concise and
            incomplete survey on the subject that shows Prince in context.

            Reception theory or as it is more popularly now called
            Reader-Response Criticism, the study of the readers role in the
            text grew out of the New Criticism, a critical theory of literature
            analysis that emerged in the 1920's led by I. A. Richards
            (1893-1979), William Empson (1906-1984), and Cleanth Brooks
            (1906-198), based on the theory of the Russian and Czech
            theorists of the formalist critical view.

            "Decontextualization", term coined by the Russian psychologist,
            Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934) wherein the reader
            makes the text part of the culture. Readers decontextualize an
            idea and recontextualize it as a product attribute, so that the birth
            of Jesus becomes identified with the St. Matthew's "Star of
            Bethlehem", or the Passion of Christ becomes identified with St.
            John's "Ecce Homo".

            Reception theory was first formaly proposed by Roman Ingarden
            (1931) The Literary Work of Art, that focused on how the reader
            puts the text together by filling in its indeterminancies.

            William Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley, "Intentional Fallacy" in
            The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of Poetry (Lexington:
            University of Kentucky Press, 1954), 194.

            They developed the idea of an "agnostic reader" who could never
            know the psychological processes of the author since they are
            inaccessible to the interpreter. We cannot know the mind of the
            author and have only their text . Therefore, it is the text that
            should be examined, not the author. They assert that "the
            design or intention of the author is neither available nor
            desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of
            literary art." "The poem is not the critic's own and not the author's
            (it is detached from the author at birth and goes about the world
            beyond his power to intend about it or control it). The poem
            belongs to the public"

            New Critics, Wimsatt & Beardsley are interested in
            historio-critical methods since they reconstruct the historical
            context in which the verbal context was first spoken to distinguish
            it from how it now stands.

            Epistemic rhetoric, a term coined by Robert Scott (1967) "On
            Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic" Central States Speech Journal,
            18: 9-17, put forth the rhetorical theory that the truth conveyed in
            the text is not found a priori outside of it nor within the speaker
            but through the dialogue between the writer and the reader.
            Scott's view coincides with that of Fish.

            Deconstruction, a branch of literary theory, developed about
            1970, demonstrates the contradictions in structuralists
            principles of textual analysis. This approach was developed
            primarily by Jacques Derrida. This method begins with isolating
            a structural relationship and identifying the priorities that give it
            its center. Deconstruction reverses the expected priorities to
            show the basis of the opposition is questionable forcing the
            reader to rethink their validity as well as all binary contrastive
            analyses.

            Jacques Derrida, 'Discussion.' The Structuralist Controversy:
            The Languages of Criticism and the Sciences of Man. Ed.
            Richard Macksey & Eugenio Donato. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
            UP, 1970. 265-272.

            Jacques Derrida:
            http://www.hydra.umn.edu/derrida/

            Roland Barthes (1973) The Pleasure of the Text, focused on the
            personal sensations of the reader. In his work, Image, Music,
            Text (NY, 1977) he presents a post-structuralist view with the
            famous line: "The text is a tissue of quotationsdrawn from the
            innumerable centers of culture" quoted by all in the know
            academes. Barthes developed the concept of the competant
            reader or the "encoded implicit reader", i.e., what assumptions
            are implicitly assumed on the part of the reader to comprehend
            the text.

            Gerald Prince, A grammar of stories; an introduction, (The
            Hague, Mouton, 1973) developed his concepts of what we now
            know as narratology (Narratology : the form and functioning of
            narrative, Berlin ; New York : Mouton, 1982).

            Wolfgang Iser Der implizite Leser. Kommunikationsformen des
            Romans von Bunyan bis Beckett. Theorie und Geschichte der
            Literatur und der schönen Künste. Texte und Abhandlungen, Bd.
            31. Uni-Taschenbucher; 163. Munich: Fink, 1972; (1978) The Act
            of Reading, focused on the reader's familiarity with the literary
            techniques and conventions of the text echoing Barthes'
            "encoded implicit reader".

            "The convergence of text and reader brings the literary work into
            existence."
            Wofgang Iser, "The Reading Proscess: A Phenomenological
            Approach," in Reader Response Criticism, ed. Jane P.
            Tompkins (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1980),
            50.


            Wolfgang Iser and Sanford Budick, The Translatability of
            Cultures: Figurations of the Space Between. Irvine Studies in the
            Humanities. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 1996.

            "Deconstruction: A Trialogue in Jerusalem." Mishkenot
            Sha'ananim Newsletter [Jerusalem] (December 1986), 7: 1-7.
            Wolfgang Iser, Jacques Derrida and Geoffrey Hartman. Abridged
            and edited version of a trialogue that took place in August 1986.

            Whereas, Stanley Fish (b. 1938) focused on what the text means
            to you.

            Prince's theory:

            1) the ideal reader (the perfectly insightful reader),
            2)the virtual reader (the reader in the author's mind),
            3) the actual reader (the reader who happens to be reading the
            text)
            4) the narratee (the reader addressed by the narrator).

            Nos. 2 & 4 are redundant. since formal and informal address in
            this sense are equivalents.

            Other models include but are not limited to:

            (1) the empirical reader, every reader of the text spanning time
            and culture.
            (2) "encoded implicit reader" cited in the text with the phrase "you
            yourselves".
            (3) "encoded explicit reader"

            Cordially in Christ,
            John
            <><
          • Horace Jeffery Hodges
            Ross, my skepticism about memory concerns the claim made that in ancient oral culture, listeners could recall an entire, lengthy discourse word for word after
            Message 5 of 6 , Dec 4, 2001
              Ross, my skepticism about memory concerns the claim
              made that in ancient oral culture, listeners could
              recall an entire, lengthy discourse word for word
              after hearing only one time. I find this unlikely
              because it would mean flawlessly and rapidly (in real
              time) transferring items of information from very
              limited short-term memories to long-term memories. I
              would need to see some evidence for this as a common
              ability in antiquity.

              Some people may have special gifts -- Isaac Asimov
              could (reportedly) read a document quickly and retain
              it word for word in his long-term memory. There may be
              individuals who have this gift for aural information.

              I also accept that the ancients may have developed the
              capacity of their short-term memories in ways that we
              don't -- or may have had greater rates of information
              transfer into long-term memory than we do.

              They may also have had special memory techniques --
              mnemonic devices and such -- that enabled them to
              retain word for word what they were hearing if they
              needed to.

              But for any and/or all of this, I need more evidence
              than a "wry smile." ;.)

              John, you have provided a wealth of information and
              bibliography. I wish that I had your familiarity with
              these details.

              I just want to raise a point, and perhaps someone more
              informed than I can respond. You state:

              > Reception theory or as it is more popularly now
              > called Reader-Response Criticism, the study of the
              > readers role in the text grew out of the New
              > Criticism, a critical theory of literature analysis
              > that emerged in the 1920's led by I. A. Richards
              > (1893-1979), William Empson (1906-1984), and Cleanth
              > Brooks (1906-198), based on the theory of the
              Russian
              > and Czech theorists of the formalist critical view.

              My understanding is that New Criticism was an
              independent lit-crit development that borrowed from
              Russian Formalism but was not actually based upon it.
              Also, it appears -- even from your post -- that
              Reception Theory developed by drawing upon many
              sources, of which, New Criticism was merely one.

              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
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.