Monday, March 24, 2008
A Different Approach
It is great to finally learn of a new theoretical perspective that looks at narratives from a different angle. When looking at any theory we have learned thus far, we have tried to understand the biases which caused the author to describe things in a certain way or even pick apart the underlying structure upon which the text is built. Reader-reponse criticism on the other hand "turns the tables", whereby we analyze how the author wrote specifically with his reader in mind and how the audience might respond. What makes this fascinating, is that when we look back at Dracula or Casino Royale, and suggest (and even criticize!) an author for their sexist, old-fashioned, and closed-minded remarks of situations and characters, we may have missed the main point and must question, which, perhaps, should be a prerequisite to premature judgment: Does the author really have an unfair viewpoint of the subject in question or rather, did the author purposely inject the narrative with this seemingly controversial instance for a specific purpose and response?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This idea is especially poignant when discussing Bond's attitudes towards women in the novel. When Vesper is first captured Bond considers simply returning to the hotel and pretending he didn't know what happened to her. Reader response would claim that the task now falls upon the reader to determine whether these are the sexist thoughts and ideas of Ian Fleming or were used to create the ubermale superspy that is James Bond. I tend to think that the sexist thoughts are those of Fleming and he had some bad experiences when working with females in the secret service. This is why he says, “This was just what he had been afraid of. These blithering women who thought they could do a man’s work. Why the hell couldn’t they stay at home and mind their pots and pans and stick to their frocks and gossip and leave the men’s work to the men. […] The silly bitch” (116).
Post a Comment