Finding One's Theoretical Niche

[archaist]

Today I wrote my first essay using the theoretical methods of "reader response" criticism in the vein of Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser. And boy, did it feel good

Comments

[kubilai9]

i wrote about reader response in my paper for my lit theory class, and found it quite stimulating. it's too bad it was in my second year ... i'd have appreciated it much more later on when many of the theorists were familiar or related to things i'd read. then again, maybe it gave me an early leg up.

[archaist]

Stanley Fish has apparently done some very famous work with John Milton that I hope to explore soon.

It's also really interesting to compare reader response theory to pre-20th century critics and their accounts of "aesthetic" value in texts, since they're so close to the points made by reader response theorists. I say this since I see Dr. Johnson listed in your interests, and wonder if you're interested in any other historical literary criticism.

[kubilai9]

i've read some of johnson's criticism on shakespeare, pope, milton, and parts of his lives of the poets, and i've read some historical theorists here and there, but i can't say i've studied anything in depth. i'm roughly familiar with the history of aesthetic theory from plato, so i've read a little tolstoy, or emerson, or arnold, or whatever, but i don't know loads of historical literary criticism. usually it's a safe bet that i'm interested in everything :)

[masculin]

I can recall a convesation we had on just this topic last year (in fact i could probably find the livejournal post on it) about Gadamer and Fish. Have you checked out Hans-Georg Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics. to me it seems similar but with a continental spin, very relevant, draws upon many insights from romanticism (which you may like) and has much to say about aesthetics/literature. If you do get around to it, tell me what you think.

[anatomiste]

Imagine, citing sources that were written in the past 50 years? Who knew I'd be one of those people?

I never seem to be. Even the Complete Milton assigned by my prof was published in 1957 and only covers the criticism up to that point (though it does it well!). Perhaps I should look into this reader response thing.

[archaist]

Does your university give you access to JStor? If so, I recommend you read Stanley Fish's article "Affective Stylistics." It's about 40 pages but it's pure gold (though at times I disagree with him, and you will too). It uses a lot of familiar examples from writers like John Milton and Walter Pater.

[anatomiste]

We do get JStor...I'll print it off at the lab later today.

Based on this my Milton prof appears to have much in common with Fish's approach. Hm'mm.

[yechezkiel]

I was actually surprised at how much from the last 50 years I cited in my paper on Milton last semester.

[conrad_zaar]

And once again, Stanley Fish saves the day!

[archaist]

I just picked up a copy of "Doing What Comes Naturally" at a used book sale held by the English Students Association at my school. Haven't you read that one? What do you think of it?

[conrad_zaar]

I have read that one, and liked it quite a bit. The only real criticism I have is something that he freely acknowledges in the Introduction: the book essentially makes the same point over and over and over again. As it happens, it's a point that I find completely convincing, but even so by the time I finished the book I was quite ready to take a long break from Fish. In particular, the section on Professionalism became eventually so tediously repetitive that I skipped about half of it. Actually, if you're interested in Fish on academic professionalism, I recommend you get ahold of his book Professional Correctness and just read the Appendix called "The Folger Papers" which is only about 14 pages long and covers all the main points

[conrad_zaar]

Whoops - forgot to log in.