Introduction: “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
“Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson first appeared in College Literature, Vol. 18, No. 2 (June 1991), a publication of the Johns Hopkins University Press. Anderson introduces a rhetorical approach to teaching literature, rooted in reader-response theory, to help students uncover and articulate their assumptions, biases, and expectations when engaging with texts. He emphasizes that “a full understanding of the reading process demands” students confront these influences and learn to analyze their responses critically. Through exercises such as reactions to Washington Irving’s “The Stout Gentleman,” Anderson illustrates how personal connections, genre expectations, and preconceived notions shape interpretation. He argues that introductory literature courses should focus on helping students “untangle their responses to literature,” encouraging them to explore the “ideological forces at work” in their reading. Anderson’s approach underscores literature’s role as a social discourse and the importance of the reader’s interaction with texts, offering students tools to deepen their literary understanding and critical thinking.
Summary of “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
1. Introducing Reader-Response Theory in Literature Classrooms
Anderson begins by addressing the challenges students face in responding to literature, noting that their reading is shaped by biases, assumptions, and expectations, often disguised as “universal truths” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141). He argues for making students aware of these influences to enhance their engagement and understanding of texts. This pedagogical shift relies on a “rhetorical approach to literature” that integrates recent literary theories into classroom practice (Anderson, 1991, p. 141).
2. Encouraging Critical Responses through Exercises
Anderson details an exercise in which students read Washington Irving’s “The Stout Gentleman” and write reactions without specific guidance. Their responses reveal various biases, such as assumptions about genre or expectations for entertainment (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). For instance, one student expected “an action climax,” while another felt the story “was incredibly useless for any sort of entertainment” (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). These insights help students identify how their perspectives shape their interpretations.
3. Moving Beyond Superficial Reactions
Rather than dismissing student responses as inappropriate, Anderson encourages them to articulate their views and develop them into deeper analysis. For example, a student describing the story as “boring” recognized its “atmosphere of motionlessness and boredom,” which Anderson frames as a valid analytical starting point (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).
4. Highlighting the Reader’s Role in Meaning-Making
The rhetorical approach emphasizes the active role of the reader, encouraging students to consider how their backgrounds and experiences influence their interpretations. Anderson connects these discussions to broader ideological contexts, explaining that “there is no such thing as context-free discourse” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).
5. Utilizing Reading Journals to Deepen Reflection
To foster critical thinking, Anderson employs reading journals where students analyze both the text and their reactions. Drawing on scholars like Kathleen McCormick, he encourages students to explore the “predominant effect” of a text and the ideological forces shaping their reading (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).
6. Subverting Traditional Approaches in Advanced Exercises
As the semester progresses, Anderson introduces unconventional texts such as John Barth’s “Lost in the Funhouse” and Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, which challenge traditional reading expectations. These texts provoke discussions on reader assumptions and authorial intent, enabling students to reflect on “what it means to read and respond to literature” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).
7. Connecting Reader-Response Theory to Epistemology
Anderson frames reader-response theory as a theory of epistemology rather than criticism, arguing that it explains “how a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145). This approach bridges individual student responses with broader discussions of context and purpose in literary study.
By implementing reader-response theory, Anderson aims to transform introductory literature courses into spaces where students critically engage with texts, uncover ideological forces, and articulate meaningful interpretations. His rhetorical approach not only fosters deeper literary understanding but also equips students with skills to navigate complex texts and ideas.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
| Theoretical Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Key Quote/Reference |
| Reader-Response Theory | A theory emphasizing the reader’s role in interpreting texts, shaped by their personal experiences, biases, and assumptions. | “A full understanding of the reading process demands that we try to make ourselves and our students aware of these underlying influences” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141). |
| Rhetorical Approach to Literature | A pedagogical method focusing on how readers construct meaning through interaction with the text and contextual forces. | “I call it the rhetorical approach to literature” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141). |
| Assumptions in Reading | Preconceived notions or beliefs that readers bring to a text, which shape their interpretation and understanding. | “We also bring assumptions to our reading…usually disguise themselves as universal truths” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141). |
| Biases | Prejudices or inclinations affecting the reader’s engagement and interpretation of a text. | “Being a health nut, I naturally have a bias against the views of sickly people” (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). |
| Context in Discourse | The idea that meaning in literature is shaped by historical, sociopolitical, cultural, and situational contexts. | “To understand discourse, one must understand its context – a basic rhetorical principle” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144). |
| Ideological Forces in Reading | External influences such as societal norms, values, and ideologies that impact the reading process. | “There are various ideological forces operating in the reading situation” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144). |
| Predominant Effect | The dominant emotional or intellectual response a reader experiences when engaging with a text. | “I ask the class members to identify the predominant effect the text had on them” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144). |
| Epistemology of Reading | The study of how knowledge is constructed by readers as they engage with texts. | “Reader-response is not actually a theory of literary criticism but a theory of epistemology” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145). |
| Reader as Co-Creator | The concept that readers actively participate in generating meaning through their interaction with a text. | “The narrator as ‘everyreader,’ the stout gentleman as ‘everytext,’ and the story as an enactment of the experience of reading” (Anderson, 1991, p. 143). |
| Purpose in Discourse | The intentionality behind language and text creation, often shaping how it is received and interpreted. | “Rhetoric takes all language to be purposive” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144). |
Contribution of “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson to Literary Theory/Theories
1. Advancing Reader-Response Theory in Pedagogy
- Anderson highlights the practical application of reader-response theory in teaching, demonstrating how students’ personal biases, assumptions, and contexts influence their interpretations.
- “Reader-response is not actually a theory of literary criticism but a theory of epistemology: it explains a way that a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).
2. Integration of Rhetoric and Literary Theory
- By incorporating rhetorical principles into reader-response theory, Anderson emphasizes the contextual nature of discourse and its influence on interpretation.
- “To understand discourse, one must understand its context – a basic rhetorical principle” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).
3. Recognizing the Role of Ideological Forces in Reading
- Anderson connects Marxist and reader-response theories by exploring how ideological forces shape reading practices and reader assumptions.
- “Certain experiences are similar enough to create common frames of reference. Historically, it has been the assumption of these common frames of reference that has motivated pedagogical practices in the literature classroom” (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).
4. Expanding the Scope of Epistemological Inquiry in Literary Theory
- By framing reader-response as a form of epistemology, Anderson moves the discussion beyond criticism to explore how readers construct knowledge through textual engagement.
- “Reader-response is…a theory of epistemology: it explains a way that a reader makes knowledge about a text” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).
5. Challenging Traditional Literary Canon Pedagogy
- Anderson critiques traditional approaches to teaching literature, advocating for methods that validate students’ diverse interpretations and personal connections to texts.
- “It is useless, even counterproductive, to spend time telling students that comments of these types are inappropriate; rather we should get the students to articulate such responses and then move them to another level of analysis” (Anderson, 1991, p. 142).
6. Bridging Reader-Response with Post-Structuralist Concerns
- Anderson aligns with post-structuralist views by challenging the notion of fixed meanings in texts, emphasizing that interpretations vary based on individual readers’ contexts.
- “The ‘point’ of the story is to have an effect. Could we not say this about all stories: do not all texts have effects on their readers?” (Anderson, 1991, p. 143).
7. Encouraging Reflexivity in Literary Studies
- Anderson’s approach promotes reflexivity by urging students to examine how their cultural, historical, and personal experiences shape their understanding of texts.
- “I ask the class members to analyze both the text and themselves as sources of this effect” (Anderson, 1991, p. 144).
8. Subverting Conventional Literary Theories
- Through the use of unconventional texts, Anderson demonstrates how reader-response theory can address narratives that defy traditional literary frameworks.
- “Texts that do not arouse typical responses…can still be addressed through a rhetorical approach” (Anderson, 1991, p. 145).
Examples of Critiques Through “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
| Literary Work | Student Response | Reader-Response Analysis |
| Washington Irving’s “The Stout Gentleman” | “The plot reminded me of the story ‘The Lady and the Tiger’ because the riddle…was never solved.” | Highlights how intertextuality shapes interpretation; the student’s connection to another text demonstrates the influence of prior reading experiences (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). |
| Washington Irving’s “The Stout Gentleman” | “I was expecting an action climax like a murder in a quiet town kind of thing.” | Reveals genre expectations shaping the reading experience; the student’s disappointment stems from unfulfilled expectations tied to preconceived notions of genre (Anderson, 1991, p. 142). |
| John Barth’s “Lost in the Funhouse” | “The story was confusing and didn’t arouse typical responses, but it made me think about how stories are constructed.” | Demonstrates engagement with metafictional techniques; students are encouraged to reflect on how unconventional narratives subvert traditional storytelling (Anderson, 1991, p. 145). |
| Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita | “Some students reacted negatively to the subject of a middle-aged man with his teenage stepdaughter.” | Explores the role of personal and cultural morality in interpretation; this discomfort provides an entry point for discussing authorial intent and narrative framing (Anderson, 1991, p. 145). |
Criticism Against “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
1. Overemphasis on Subjectivity
- Critics may argue that Anderson’s approach risks prioritizing individual interpretations at the expense of textual analysis, potentially undermining the text’s inherent meaning or authorial intent.
2. Limited Scope for Canonical Frameworks
- By focusing on personal biases and experiences, Anderson’s method might de-emphasize traditional literary theories and historical or cultural contexts that are essential for comprehensive literary criticism.
3. Lack of Clear Evaluation Standards
- Anderson’s approach relies heavily on student responses, which could make it challenging to establish objective criteria for evaluating the quality or validity of their analyses.
4. Potential for Reinforcing Biases
- Encouraging students to explore their assumptions and biases might inadvertently validate or reinforce those biases, especially if students are not guided to critically examine and deconstruct them.
5. Insufficient Rigor for Advanced Study
- While effective for introductory courses, critics may find this approach too simplistic or reductive for more advanced literary studies, where deeper theoretical engagement is expected.
6. Risk of Reducing Texts to Reader Reactions
- By framing texts as catalysts for personal reactions, Anderson’s approach could be criticized for diminishing the broader aesthetic, historical, or philosophical significance of the works.
7. Overgeneralization of the Rhetorical Approach
- The rhetorical approach Anderson advocates may not be universally applicable to all texts, especially those that resist straightforward interpretation or rely heavily on intertextual or postmodern elements.
8. Potential to Overshadow Authorial Intent
- Anderson’s emphasis on the reader’s role might lead to neglecting the significance of authorial intent or the socio-historical forces that influenced the text’s creation.
Representative Quotations from “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation |
| “At times I find myself forgetting that for most students, responding to literature is no simple matter.” (Anderson, 1991, p. 141) | Highlights the complexity of literary engagement for students and the necessity of addressing the assumptions and biases they bring to texts. |
| “A full understanding of the reading process demands that we try to make ourselves and our students aware of these underlying influences.” (p. 141) | Emphasizes the importance of self-awareness in the reading process to uncover hidden biases and expectations that shape interpretation. |
| “I call it the rhetorical approach to literature.” (p. 141) | Introduces Anderson’s teaching method, which integrates reader-response theory with rhetorical analysis to enhance students’ critical engagement with texts. |
| “The first four remarks show how readings are constructed at a personal level.” (p. 142) | Underlines the subjectivity of interpretation, shaped by personal experiences, biases, and intertextual connections. |
| “We need to tell this student that the point he is articulating in defense of his boredom is a worthwhile, legitimate argument to make about the story.” (p. 143) | Advocates for validating student interpretations, even when they diverge from traditional academic perspectives, as a way to deepen their analysis. |
| “To understand discourse, one must understand its context – a basic rhetorical principle.” (p. 144) | Stresses the role of contextual forces—historical, cultural, and ideological—in shaping both texts and their interpretations. |
| “Reader-response is not actually a theory of literary criticism but a theory of epistemology: it explains a way that a reader makes knowledge about a text.” (p. 145) | Reframes reader-response theory as a broader framework for understanding how readers construct meaning and knowledge from literary texts. |
| “I ask the class members to analyze both the text and themselves as sources of this effect.” (p. 144) | Encourages reflexivity in students, prompting them to consider their own roles in shaping their responses to literature. |
| “Texts that do not arouse typical responses…can still be addressed through a rhetorical approach.” (p. 145) | Demonstrates the versatility of the rhetorical approach in addressing unconventional or challenging texts, fostering deeper discussions. |
| “Could we not say this about all stories: do not all texts have effects on their readers?” (p. 143) | Provokes reflection on the dynamic interaction between texts and readers, emphasizing the relational nature of meaning-making in literature. |
Suggested Readings: “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom” by Larry Anderson
- Anderson, Larry. “Using Reader-Response Theory in the Introductory Literature Classroom.” College Literature, vol. 18, no. 2, 1991, pp. 141–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111901. Accessed 4 Jan. 2025.
- Atkinson, Becky. “Teachers Responding to Narrative Inquiry: An Approach to Narrative Inquiry Criticism.” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 103, no. 2, 2010, pp. 91–102. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539760. Accessed 4 Jan. 2025.
- Thandeka K. Chapman. “Interrogating Classroom Relationships and Events: Using Portraiture and Critical Race Theory in Education Research.” Educational Researcher, vol. 36, no. 3, 2007, pp. 156–62. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4621090. Accessed 4 Jan. 2025.