Interpretive Expectations
When an educated reader opens a book, no matter the length, they almost always have an expectation that they hope is met when the end is reached. But what happens when this expectation is not met? What happens when the story exceeds this expectation? This desire to be wowed or even to just be minimally satisfied by the text is believed to be the main reason for reading fiction. Will I get what I want out of this reader-passage relationship? The answer to these questions is simple; its complicated. The way that one person experiences a story can vary greatly from how another reader interprets it, even if that person is a peer or part of the others interpretive community. Your interpretive community is the group of people that you relate to most literally and are most commonly linked through educational institutions. For instance, Jack and Jill both attend the same university, and they both share reading strategies and intellectual views. Jack and Jill are considered to be in the same interpretive community. When analyzing a work of literature, Jack and Jill would have similar points and break down the structure of work in similar manners. This influences critical analysis greatly in that it is somewhat predictable and is usually prioritized over personal experiences. The analytical differences of interpreting literature is not limited to your interpretive community, but is also influenced by the age at which you read the work, your life experiences with the subject matter, as well as how the text produces a response through the transaction of the reader and the text (Siegel). This theoretical approach is referred to as reader response criticism and is an extremely interesting way of critiquing literary works, especially fiction. This reader response criticism involves many variables and infers that the act of reading and analyzing the text is as much a creative act as the writers job of writing the piece (RRC 1801). In the story Araby by James Joyce a young boy is going through adolescence and has become somewhat infatuated with his playmates sister to the point that his senses are failing him and his day to day life becomes difficult to manage. When I review this short story through the reader response theory, it becomes evident that it can be interpreted differently due to age, experience, and the transaction occurring with the reader and the text. Though the readers in my interpretive community are my classmates at The University of Houston, and though we might see eye to eye on most literary subjects, these three aspects of critical thought can change any one of our views at any moment.
As mentioned before, one reason for differentiating interpretations can be age. Unfortunately I didnt read James Joyces Araby until the age of twenty three, well out of my adolescent years. It makes me think, how would this story affect me at the age of the main character? As I think back to that age, I feel as though I could relate more. The frustrations and pain of emotional flurries at that age could be comparable to un-sedated brain surgery. Although the worries of grown-up life are absent at this stage in life, it can be extremely difficult to cope with these feelings. When I was the boys age I would try everything possible to ignore and hide the feelings I had for girls but no matter how hard I tried the feelings were inevitable. But trying to relate to the adolescent character well into my twenties becomes a more difficult task as a reader. I want to tell him what he is doing wrong and give him advice from the mistakes Ive made during encounters with girls/women in my life. At this moment is where the big difference comes in, and the reader response theory is proved. At one point in my life I am completely enthralled in his problems and completely understand the characters personality and tribulations, and as an adult at another point in my life I just want to jump into the story and take over. Although it may seem obvious that this particular story elicits a particular response from different age groups, it is safe to assume that the same is true for a completely different reading. For example, when reading a story of a protagonist who is successful in all his/her endeavors and triumphs throughout the story, a younger reader may become intimidated by the characters poise and view the protagonist as an antagonist. Where on the other hand an adult reader may feel comfortable with this character and see themselves, or what they would like to be like in this characters victorious personality. The fact that the same reader can, at different stages in their life interpret the same story differently due to the determinate of age is the real pudding proof.
Who is a reader? If you and I are readers, can we read a work of literature without our own personal bias? Can we sit down strictly with the text and go one on one without pertaining it to our own personal experiences? This idea of boxing out the story being read and ignoring our own beliefs and historical context seems almost impossible. The anticipation that we as readers endure form the moment we read the title is called Horizons of Expectations (Siegel). Meaning that the way we read is greatly influenced by our predisposed experiences, and they are very unwilling to go away. In fact, as I mentioned before, the older we get and experience more of life has to offer, our bias towards each text changes dramatically. For example, in the story Araby, the author opens up by telling the reader about the cul-de-sac or blind-street that the young boy lives on. It is a quiet street with a large lot and house at the end of the street that is creepy and vacant (Joyce 646). When I was growing up in Colorado, we lived at the very beginning of a cul-de-sac and the house directly behind ours was inhabited for the entire time we resided there. So, when I read James Joyces description of the young boys neighborhood, I automatically had a vision of kids frolicking with their friends in my old neighborhood. Araby takes place in Ireland and most likely looks completely different than Denver. Yet, my predisposed idea of what the cul-de-sac should look like unavoidably popped into my head. This vision set the tone for how I would imagine the rest of the storys setting would look like. This differs greatly with how a reader who did not grow up on a blind-street rather a condo would interpret the setting, even though they may be part of my interpretive community. An example of the bias I brought with me into these reading deals with the bazaar itself. Im not one for noisy marketplaces and loud sales people especially when its closing time, so when I pictured myself going to Araby I am immediately put in a discomforting mood. This negative attitude I had at this point in the story helped me to understand the young boys frustration and anger. If I was a reader who enjoyed thrift shopping in a bustling bazaar, I probably wouldnt have critiqued the ending in such a way. The mere fact that I recognize this difference will probably have an influence on how I analyze my next reading.
Although the analysis and the interpretation of text by the reader are certainly an important part of why we read, the response elicited by the text is of its own great importance. In fact, without the response the text is impossible to interpret, essentially meaning that the two go hand in hand. The reader reads, a response is extracted, and then and only then the reader critiques the work based on how the text touched them. It is a series of transactions that that seems to never end, being that the more we read the story at different points in our lives the many varieties of responses we encounter. This process is called transactional analysis which is a concept introduced by Louise Rosenblatt (Siegel). As I reread Araby to get a better feel for the text before sitting down to write this essay, I noticed that the response I received from the text was much different this time around. It was like watching a movie for the second time and realizing something in a scene that I had missed the first time I watched it. The intriguing feeling alone was like its own response. This fresh reaction I received was not really an all around enlightenment of the story, but more of a bits-and-pieces enlightenment. For example, when I first read this short I didnt consider the house or the deceased priest who used to live there much of a theme in the story. But after looking at it from a new view, the transaction that took place between the text and myself changed from the first time until now. I felt as though the house was a metaphor for how the adolescent child felt. It had been abandoned by its owner; much like the boy had been abandoned by his parents for whatever reason. Also, the author mentions that the priest was very charitable and gave all of his things away in his will, much like this young boy who ventures to a strange place to buy something for a girl whom he knows through passing. Its small details like these that place themselves in my thought process through a transaction between the text and I.
Although there are very many determinates that elicit many different reader responses, this does not mean that each and every one of these responses are not valid and correct in their own ways. In fact, some reader response critics say that a literary text has no existence outside of a readers mind making the reading process subjective (RRC 1801). Throughout my life this individualism has shaped my reading strategies that I have gone to share with my interpretive community. I see it as a train making many stops, and at each stop I get a little older, a little wiser, and in turn interpret many different readings in many different ways.
Works Cited
Joyce, James. Araby. The Story and Its Writer. Ed. Ann Charters 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2007. 646-650
Reader Response Criticism. The Story and Its Writer. Ed. Ann Charters 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1801
Siegel, Kristi. Reception and Reader Response Theory. Introduction to Modern Literary Theory. http://www.kristisiegel.com/theory.htm
Already have an account? Log In Now
5999