Reader-Response Theory

For decades, critics believed the 'meaning' of a story was a hidden treasure buried inside the words by the author. Reader-Response Theory flips this script. It argues that a text is merely ink on paper until a reader engages with it. Influential theorist Louise Rosenblatt distinguished between two types of reading: efferent reading, where we look for facts (like a recipe), and aesthetic reading, where we live through the experience. In this view, the 'poem' (the meaning) does not exist on the page or in the reader's head alone; it exists in the transaction between the two. Think of the text as a musical score: it requires a performer (the reader) to actually become music.

If everyone interprets differently, is 'any' meaning valid? Stanley Fish introduced interpretive communities to explain why groups of people (like a Grade 12 English class) often agree on meanings. We are trained to use similar 'strategies' for reading. Furthermore, Wolfgang Iser suggests that texts are full of gaps or 'indeterminacies.' The author cannot describe every detail, so the reader must 'fill in' these blanks using their imagination. If a text says 'he walked into the room,' you subconsciously decide the color of the carpet or the temperature of the air. This 'filling in' is where your unique perspective takes over.

We can visualize the Reader-Response process as a dynamic equation. If $T$ represents the Text (the objective words) and $R$ represents the Reader (their history, mood, and culture), the Meaning ($M$) is not a constant. Instead, it is a function of their interaction. Because $R$ is always changing, $M$ is never static. Even if you read the same book at age 15 and age 30, the $R$ variable has changed, therefore the $M$ must change as well. This is why 'classics' feel different every time we return to them.