Re: Mr. Antolini

WILL HOCHMAN (hochman@uscolo.edu)
Fri, 05 Dec 1997 08:40:04 -0700 (MST)

Peggy, I don't think Jim knows very much about reader response criticism
(validity of readings is really not the point of this school of
criticism--see _Is There A Text in This Class_ by Stanley Fish or _The
Implied Reader_ by Wolfgang Iser for thinking about subjectivity and how
readers construct meaning) and I'm disappointed with the idea that our
life experiences don't construct our readings and mean something to our
"school of bananafish."  I'm a tenured English Professor who truly enjoys
the way Malcs, for example, uses a pretty keen reading eye and living eye
to make his points, I enjoy Helena's cantankerous, I enjoy Tim's kindness,
and I miss Sundeep's wisdom...what they bring of themselves to our list
and readings is much more important than New Critical bull of whose
reading is most valid.  

I believe the only true thing we can conclude
about Antolini is that he is ambiguous, but that it is important for
individual readers to weave their interpretations of him into their
readings of catcher.  BTW, I really don't think Jim's post is offensive
and the fact that someone left the list (who was not a very good
contributor IMHO) for sensitivity issues is a private affair that has more
to do with how individuals construct their e lives than anything said
online here.

will

On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Peggy F. Jean-Louis wrote:

> A few days ago, I read a post from someone who mentioned a former
> Bananafish who had left the list because dicussing something that was so
> personal to her had become too painful. At the time, I didn't really
> understand what she meant by that, but after reading the post that follows
> this comment, I am beginning to see what how that could have happened and
> wonder if I shouldn't follow her example and end my brief association with
> this list as well.
> 
> Peggy 
> 
> > 
> > eh, what seemed to me to be happening in your post was not that you were
> > taking out of the text things that were there, but importing life experiences
> > into the text.  A husband and wife kissing in public profusely yet staying in
> > separate rooms in their home is in the text.  The "meaning" of this pointing
> > to homosexuality is not in the text--that comes from life experiences, and
> > that can be valid or not valid as far as the text goes.
> > 
> > That's why I said we had to look across several works to get the possible
> > meaning "in this particular instance."  I didn't mean that to apply across
> > the boards.  Since I think the message communicated in our text here is
> > ambiguous, we may need to look beyond this one text.
> > 
> > What your English teacher was describing was Reader Response theory, and not
> > all hold to it.  And even among RR critics, relatively few would say all
> > readings of a text are equally valid.  Not all readings of a text are equally
> > valid, and just because we "see" something there that doesn't mean it's
> > there.  What we most often see is ourselves--that's why we read--but that may
> > not necessarily be a commentary on the novel or story we are reading, but on
> > ourselves...
> > 
> > Jim
> > 
> 
>