A Comparative Study of Norman Holland and David Bleich Essay

subscriber reply censure is a general experimental condition that refers to different approaches of modern review article and literary theory that digestes on the solutions of endorsers and their re make upions to the literary textbookual matterbook. It also, in M.H Abrams words, does not designate any one critical theory, unless a focus on the help of development a literary text that is sh atomic number 18d by some(prenominal) of the critical modes(268). commentator receipt criticism is described as a multitude of approaches to registering literary productions that explicitly emphasize the proof lecturers quality in creating the importee an experience of a literary create. It refers to a concourse of critics who study, not a literary cut back, alone indorsers or audiences responding to that literary shit. It has no single start point. They seriously ch wholeenge the dominancy of the text-oriented theories such as natural reprimand and Formalism. rat ifier reply theory holds that the reader is a necessary third break dance in the former-text-reader relationship that constitutes the literary work. The relationship among readers and text is passing evaluated. The text does not exist without a reader they are complemental to to each one other. A text sitting on a shelf does nothing. It does not come alive until the reader conceives it. Reader Response criticism encompasses various approaches or types. Of theses types is the Subjectivist Reader Response criticism, which embraces critics such as David Bleich, Norman Holland, who are my focus in this paper, and Robert Crossman.Those critics mickle the readers chemical re comeion not as one guided by text but as one motivated by a deep-seated, in the flesh(predicate) mental needs. They also are called Individualists. As they think that the readers rejoinder is guided by his psychological needs, at that placefore around of them, like Norman Holland, gestate a psychoanal ytic view of that repartee. In the psychoanalytic view the reader responses to the literary work in a highly personal way of life. The true(a) import of the text is the meaning created by the soulfulnesss individual.Lawrence Shaffer defines psychoanalytical Criticism as an approach to literary criticism, influenced by Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, which views a literary work as an expression of the unconscious- of the person psyche of its author or of the collective unconscious of a society or of the full human race (44). Reader Response critics have applied the psychoanalytic view to their analysis of the experience of reading a work. Namely they focus on the psyche of the reader. Prominent among those who applied the psychoanalytical view is the Ameri bay window critic Norman Holland. Born in Manhattan in1927, Holland is an Ameri net literary critic and theorist who has focus on human responses to books, film, and other arts. He is cognize for his work in psychoanalytic al criticism and Reader Response criticism.Holland began his Psychoanalytic writings with Psychoanalysis and Shakespeare (1966). In which he made a watch of what psychoanalytic writers has said approximately Shakespeare. He urged psychoanalytic critics to study real people, the audience and readers of literature, rather than imaginary characters. His contribution to Reader Response criticism was great. He has written about the way self (reader) interacts with world (text) in four books The Dynamics of literary Response (1968), Poems in Persons (1973), 5 Readers yarn (1979), and Laughing A Psychology of Humor (1982) (Berg 266). gibe to Holland there are three explanation- simulations in Reader Response Theory. First, text-active model, in which the text defines the response. The second model he calls reader-active, in which readers create meanings, and undergo the reading experience by exploring the text and all its items. Word forms, word meanings, syntax, grammar, on up to compl ex individual ideas about character, plot, genre, makeups, or values(Holland). thence the reader explores and examines the text.Most who pioneered this view like Holland are Americans such as David Bleich, Stanley Fish, and Louise Rosenblatt. The third model is a compromise, and Holland calls it bi-active, in which the text causes part of the response and the reader the rest. Holland thinks that a reader-active model is right. He believes that it explains likeness and going in reading. Similarities come from similar hypotheses formed by gender, class, education, race, age, or interpretive community (Holland). bit the difference come from differing hypotheses that aftermath from individual beliefs, opinions and values, i.e. ones indistinguishability. Holland considers a test-active model is wrong(p), and therefore a bi-active model is also wrong as it is half wrong and consequently all wrong.Holland suggests that when we interpret a text, we unconsciously react to our identit y themes. To defend ourselves a come acrossst our fears and wishes, we transform the work in roll to relieve psychic pressures (Shaffer 48). Literature allows us to recreate our identities and to spot ourselves as Holland deduced after the Delphi seminar, in which he worked at the State University of New York at Buffalo with other critics such as Robert Rogers, David Willbern and others.The Delphi seminar was designed to number assimilators know themselves. The readers re-creation of his identity could happen when he transact with the text in four shipway defense, expectation, fantasy, and transformation, which Holland reduces to the acronym DEFT (Newton, interpret school text 144). Defenses are ways of copying with inner and outer reality, in particular conflicts between different psychic agencies and reality. Holland thinks that we defend in many ways we repress our fears and our painful thoughts or feelings, we deny sensory evidence or we isolate one emotion or idea fr om another. Expectations are our fears and wishes.Fantacies is what the individual puts out from himself into the outside world.In the Delphi seminar Holland and the rest of critics helped students discover how they each act upon a personal style (identity) to reading, writing, learning, and teaching (Newton, Twentieth-Century 208). The seminar discussed the texts and also their associations, but focused on the associations. Students mastered the type matter, and also saw how people animise or develop a personal identity. each(prenominal) student had great insight to himself, and his characteristic ways with text and people. Holland thinks that only when as the beingness of a child constitutes the existence of a mother and the existence of a mother constitutes the existence of a child, so, in identity theory, all selves and objects constitute one another (Newton, Twentieth-Century 208). So, I think the existence of a text constitutes the existence of a reader and evil versa, and the reasonableness of the text constitutes an understanding of self as well.In The Dynamics of Literary Response (1968), Holland was interested in the fact that texts embody fantasies. Later on, his opinion about texts reversed and he inferred that it is the reader who makes fantasies which she transforms or projects onto the literary text. People attribute differently because they internalize according to a core identity theme (Berg 267). In Poems in Persons (1973), Holland explains that readers create the text, and he also questions the objectiveness of the text. In this book Holland suggests that a poem is nothing but specks of carbon swart on dried wood pulp, and suggests that these specks have nothing to do with people, merely people who do thing to these specks (Berg 267).When we introject literary work we create in ourselves a psychological transformation, where we feel as if it were within the text or the work yet it is not. This takes us to Hollands performance al model in which the reader initiates and creates the response. Holland saw that reading is a actal parade in which the reader and the text mesh together. And it is a personal transaction of the reader with the text in which there is no fundamental partitioning between the texts office staff and the readers role (Newton, Interpreting Text 142), so the roles of the text dovetails with that of the reader.Holland has hired a group of students for an experiment. They read piteous stories and discussed them with him in interviews in which he asked questions and elicited associations. Their responses showed a more variety than he could explain. Different readers might interpret a poem or a story differently at the train of meaning, morals, or aesthetic value. The text itself, however, was a fixed entity that elicited reasonably fixed responses (Holland). He regards the text as an objective entity and has no role in the process of interpretation.But in his next book 5 Readers Read ing (1979) he gives more evidence of the congenital creation of the reader. He tried his model on actual readers. Five readers read A Rose for Emily by Faulkner, and in the process of reading they create precise different stories, stories which inevitably reflect the identity themes of their creators (Berg 267). When he listened to their understandings of a prone character or event or phrase, he found them ever different. Their emotional responses were diverse. So, the idea that there is a fixed or suspend response was an illusion.Holland deduces that fantasies, structures, and forms do not exist in a literary work as he previously conceived, but they exist in the individual readers re-creation of the text. Holland thinks that each person reads differently, and this difference stems from personality (Newton, Twentieth-Century 204). Holland found that he could understand the readers differing responses by reading their identities. And he could explain their different reactions t o the poem or diddle story by looking to their identity themes, as their patters of defences, expectations, fantasies, and transformations will help. The transformational model of his Dynamics was correct, but it was the reader who does the transformation and not the text. The text was however a raw significant. So Holland arrives at the deduction that people who have fantasies after his previous assumption that text embody fantasies. Hollands thinking about texts reversed after David Bleichs prodding who insisted that texts do not have fantasies, people do.To understand a literary work, Holland claims that you should perceive it done the lens of some human perception, either your let experience, or person else, or even a critics analysis of the work. These perceptions modify from individual to individual, from community to community, and from culture to culture. He thinks that one cannot perceive the raw, natural text, as he can only perceive it through some one elses proc ess of perception. Thus Holland claims that if readers free responses to texts are compile they will have virtually nothing in common (Newton, Interpreting Text 143).According to Holland the relation between the innate and objective is undifferentiated and can not be separated. For there is a transactional process of interpretation where the roles of the reader and the text are intertwined, and the nervous strain dividing them blurs and dissolves. He thinks that readers should accept interpretation as a transaction between the readers unique identity and the text. Holland, however, does not want to take the side of the objective or that of the subjective, yet he is looking for a vanishing point between them, and wants to make both(prenominal) text and reader meet at an intersection of interpretation.David Bleich (1936-) is a Judaic critic, a son of a rabbi, a professor of Talmud, and a Subjectivist Reader Response critic. In personal Reader Response, the text is subordinated t o the individual reader. The subject becomes the individual reader as he reacts to the text and reveals himself in the act of reading. For example, when a reader is addressed with a story of a fix who ignores his child, then the intensity of that readers reaction may posture it his/her conflicted relation with his stimulate father. Subjective criticism has been attacked as being also relativistic. Defenders of this approach point out that literature mustiness work on a personal, emotional level to move us powerfully.David Bleich takes an approach differs from Hollands. H is primary concern in his book Readings and Feelings is pedagogy rather than psychology. He thinks that reading is a wholly subjective process(Rabinowitz 86), and that the different or competing interpretation can be talk termsd and settled. He examines the ways in which meanings or interpretations are constructed in a class room community, with particular violence on the ways in which a group can negotiate am ong competing interpretations(86).In Readings and Feelings, Bleich presents a detailed account of his teaching techniques during a natural semester(Berg 269). Thats why he is bear on with pedagogy and not psychology. He introduces himself to his class and discusses the way he wants his students to look at literature. The first earlier sessions were designed to help students be acquainted with their subjective feelings, and how to pass them. flush the idiosyncratic personal responses of the students are accepted and discussed sympathetically.With the students Bleich plunges into different literary genres including poetry, short story, and novel. Yet before discussing these genres, Bleich wants his students to be as personal as manageable when they discuss poetry. He wants their affective responses, their free associations, any anecdotal material that occurs to them (Berg 269).Bleich focuses on questions such as what is the most substantial word, the most important passage, or the most important aspect of a story (269). Thus, he believes that his students move from the personal to the interpersonal and then to the social. The cause of these movements is not the salmagundi in genre but the tenor of the questions Bleich asks(269) is what guides the movement.Shaffer says that In Subjective Criticism (1978), Bleich assumes that each persons most urgent motivations are to understand himself and that all objective interpretations are derived finally from subjective responses (Shaffer 48).Like Norman Holland, Bleich focuses on the subconscious responses of the readers to the text, including his emotional responses, our infantile, adolescent, or simply gut responses (Berg 268). According to Bleich the interpretation of texts or the personal responses to texts are in a way or another motivated. Namely we are motivated by plastered things to make a certain interpretation or response to a literary work in particular or a work of art in general. Our interpretation s are a motivated activities, and any act of interpretation, or meaning-conferring activity is motivated, andit is important for us to understand the motives behind our interpretations(270).Bleich suggests that only way to figure out and determine these motivations behind our interpretations of texts is to took our subjective responses to texts where each readers response receives the uniform respect(270). A wind passion to self-understanding and self-knowledge is what motivates us as readers. We interpret in order to gain some kind of knowledge which will resolve some bother, or we do it to explain something that was puzzling us(270).Bleich goes further and says that if a certain set or school of interpretation prevails it is not because it is immediate to an objective right about art(Newton, Twentieth-Century 234). If a community of students hold upon certain interpretation to a given text, then the standard truthcan only devolve upon the community of students(234). So, whe n students come up with a consensus reading of a certain text, and agree unanimously upon its interpretation, then their subjective feeling and values are the same. Thus the literary text must come under the control of subjectivity either an individuals subjectivity or the collective subjectivity of a group(233).The group comes up with a consensus after discussing their personal responses with each other and negotiates ideas and individual responses. This idea of dialog that Bleich introduces helps the group weighs and discusses each ones own responses in order to come to a group decision(Berg 271). thence Bleich says that critics and their audiences assume interpretive knowledge to beas objective as formulaic knowledge(Newton 232). The assumption of the objectivity of a text is nearly a game played by critics (232). Critics know the fallacy of the objectivity of a text, and believe in critical pluralism, namely allowing multiple interpretations of the same work.Bleich does not ig nore or deny the objectivity of the text or a work of literature. But text is an object that is different from other objects as it is a symbolic object. A text is not just a group o words written in ink on a sheet of paper. It, unlike other objects, has no escape in its material existence. For example, an apple is an object that its existence does not view on whether someone eats it or sees it, however, a texts or a books existence does depend on whether someone writes it and reads it (Newton 233).The work of literature is a response to the authors life experience, and the interpretation of the reader the response to his reading experience. The readers subjective interpretation creates an understanding to the text. Through this transaction between the reader and the text, I think we can come across with an understanding of literature and of people as well. This artistic transaction helps to blur and dissolve the dividing line between the subjective and objective. It is idle as Ble ich found to imagine that we can avoid the entanglements of subjective reactions and motives(Newton, Twentieth-Century 235). As our motive in our subjective interpretations is our desire to self-knowledge and self-understanding, then the study of ourselves and the study of the literary work are ultimately a single enterprise.Though Holland and Bleich are Individualist Reader Response critics, they have different views in particular issues. Norman Holland thinks that in order to understand a students or a readers interpretation of a text he should examine his psyche and uncover his identity theme. Bleich takes a different position. He is concerned with pedagogy rather that psychology, therefore he examines the ways in which meanings are constructed, and how a group of readers could negotiate interpretations.Holland suggests that the readers role is intermingling with that of the text. The reader re-creates the text influenced by his/her subjective responses and introjects his/her fan tasies on the literary work. Through this transaction with the text we re-create our identities, and our identity themes provide individual differences in interpretations, and the result is a wide array of interpretations that allow us to explore many responses. Bleich denies Hollands identity theme. He thinks that interpretations are not an number of our differing identity themes, but they are a result of our motives, feelings, and preoccupations.Hollands Delphi seminar helped students or readers know their selves and discover that each one of them can bring a personal style (identity) to reading. So, the issue of self-discovery or self-knowledge is agreed upon by Holland and Bleich as well, however their ways of achieving it differ.Holland does not side with either the subjective or the objective split, yet he is looking for a vanishing point between them. In his Dynamics he used to consider the text as an objective reality, or a raw material. Yet the role of the reader combines that of the text in a transactional process of reading and interpretation. Thus there is no fundamental division between the roles of both the reader and the text, they dovetail with each other. For Bleich, the text is a symbolic object that has no bit in its material existence. The existence of text depends on whether someone writes it or reads it. So, the existence of the text and the existence of the reader is interdependent.Holland holds the same view when he says that the existence of a mother constitutes the existence of a child and vice versa, also the existence of selves constitutes the existence of objects. Thereby, the dividing line between the objective and subjective blurs and dissolves. This constitutes that we cannot ignore the entanglements of subjective reactions and motives to the objective text or to be accurate, the text which is a symbolic object.Both critics agree on the idea of the transactional process of reading, whether by Hollands identity themes which hel p reader interpret the text and understand himself, or by Bleichs desire to self-knowledge that motivates reader to interpret the text and understand it. Both apply a transaction that leads to an understanding and interpretation of a text along with the readers own self. This aim of gaining knowledge and this study of ourselves and of art are ultimately a single enterprise.I think that Holland does not agree that there could be a consensus interpretation which is agreed upon by a group of readers. He thinks that each reader has his own personality or identity theme, and thereby interpretations will be multiple and diverse. While Bleichs idea of negotiation among readers can lead to a unanimous decision about the meaning of the literary work. The negotiation among readers enable them to express their personal feelings freely and depict their responses without the fear of being rejected. For instance, in David Bleichs class, there is a democracy. Each readers response receives the sam e respect, and there is no underrating of their idiosyncrasies. This helped them develop from the personal to the interpersonal and then to the social.While in Hollands view, there can be no unanimous interpretation of a given work of art. For each reader is influenced by his/her identity theme. Also, Hollands subjects report their responses in terms of the clichs of the various subcultures and cultural discourses work to constitute the consciousness of American college students. Holland concludes that not the individualisation of his students butthe way their individuality is in fact a product of their cultural situation(Rabinowitz 86).In conclusion, Holland and Bleich did not in a way or another negotiate a consensus rather, by some irritated leap, Holland becomes convinced of what Bleich had to tell him(Berg 271).Works CitedAbrams, M.H. Reader-Response Criticism. Glossary of Literary Terms.6th Ed. New York Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993.Berg, Temma F. Psychologies of Re ading. Tracing Literary Theory. Ed.Joseph Natoli. Urbana and Chicago Illinois UP, 1987. 248-274.Holland, Norman N. Reader-Response already is Cognitive Criticism.Bridging the Gap. 8 Apr. 1995. Stanford University. 26 Dec.2007 ., The Story of a Psychoanalytic Critic. An Intellectual. 26 Dec.2007 .Laga, Barry. Reading with an Eye on Reading An Introduction toReader-Response. Reader Response. 1999. 23 Dec. 2007.Newton, K. M. Reader Response Criticism. Interpreting the Text A scathing Introduction to the Theory and Practice of LiteraryInterpretation. Great Britain Billing and Sons, 1990. 141-153., ed. Norman Holland Reading and Identity A PsychoanalyticRevolution. Twentieth-Century Literary Theory. LondonMacmillan, 1989. 204-209., David Bleich The Subjective Character of The CriticalInterpretation. Twentieth-Century Literary Theory. LondonMacmillan, 1989. 231-235.Rabinowitz, Peter J. Whirl without intercept Audience-Oriented Criticism.Contemporary Literary Theory. Ed. G. Douglas Atkins and LauraMorrow. USA Macmillan UP, 1989. 81-85.Shaffer, Lawrence. Psychoanalytic Criticism. Literary Criticism.1sted. New Delhi common ivy Publishing House, 2001. 44-48.