rudolf kuenzli the inter subjective structure of the reading process.a communication oriented theory...

8/3/2019 Rudolf Kuenzli the Inter Subjective Structure of the Reading Process.a Communication Oriented Theory of Literature

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rudolf-kuenzli-the-inter-subjective-structure-of-the-reading-processa-communication 1/11

The Intersubjective Structure of the Reading Process: A Communication-Oriented Theory ofLiteratureThe Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response by Wolfgang IserReview by: Rudolf E. KuenzliDiacritics, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1980), pp. 47-56Published by: The Johns Hopkins University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/465092 .

Accessed: 21/02/2012 06:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Diacritics.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/465092?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/465092?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



T H E INTERSUBJECTIVESTRUCTUREF T H EREADING PROCESS: ACOMMUNCAT

THEORY O F LITERATURE

RUDOLFE. KUENZLI

Wolfgang Iser. THE ACT OF READING:A THEORYOF AESTHETICRESPONSE.altimore:TheJohnsHopkinsUniv. Press,1978.

Whathappenswhen we readliterary exts? This seems to be a naive,

simple question which most critics and literary heoreticians have mis-

takenly ignored.But a shift in literary heoryfromspeculationsconcerningthe structures and meanings of the text to an analysis of the readingprocess puts intoquestionthe assumptionsof the majorrecenttheoriesof

literature,from structuralism, unctionalism and New Criticism o post-structuralism,since they have generally bracketedthe reader and the

readingprocess in their endeavor to provideframeworks or "objective"descriptionsof structuresand meanings.

We maywell ask ourselveswhy the readerwas so long neglected infavor of "objective"descriptions of literaryworks. Two major reasonsseem to account for the suppressionof the reader:drawingattention tothe readerand the readingprocessis believed to endanger he "objectivity"which we gained through numerous battles against subjectivism, andwhich we have to protect in the literaryestablishment if we are to be

considered as working in a respectable field of study. Critics fear thatemphasizing the reader'sactivity will again lead to uncontrollablesub-

jectivism and ultimately to anarchy in literarystudies. Secondly, anyanalysisof the readingprocessis frequentlydismissed as a hopelessunder-

taking, since the idiosyncraciesof each reader seem to lead away fromuseful generalizationsconcerningeither the activitiesof the readeror thenature of the literarywork. Paying attention to the reader is thereforeoften regardedas a subversiveactivitywhich re-opensPandora'sbox andunderminesour hard-earned certainties"oncerning iteraryexts. Indeed,a reader-orientedheoryexposes our"objective"analysesas sophisticated"subjective"readings.Iser therefore considers his analysisof the readingprocess as promoting"reflection on presuppositions operative both inreadingand interpreting"p. x]. Since everycriticbases his analysison his

own reading,"the would-beobjective judgmentsreston a foundationthat

appears to be every bit as 'private' as those that make no claims to

objectivity, and this fact renders it all the more imperativethat these

seemingly 'private'processesshould be investigated" p. 24].Recent attemptsto deal with the role of the reader GeorgesPoulet,

UmbertoEco,Michael Riffaterre,GeraldPrince,NormanHolland,David

Bleich,StanleyFish,Hans RobertJauss,RolandBarthes,and others)have

emphasizedthe importanceof the reader or literary heoryand criticism,

V~

i~iiiii• iiiii!-ii...

iiiiiii"'.iiiiiiiiiiiiii'•-ii~

••i~i-i~i ---:---

I):

Fr

a

:::I

et'

diacritics/June1980 47



but theirspeculationstend to implytwo kindsof determinism:either the reader'sroleis determinedby the text, and an ideal reader s posited; or the text is determinedbythe sociological and/or psychological make-upof the individualreader,andthe textis reducedto an indeterminateRorschachblot. WolfgangIser'sThe Act of Readingisa significant contributionto the presenttheoretical discussion, since he attemptsto

avoid the subjectivist and objectivist determinacies by developing an ideal modelwhich establishes the intersubjectivestructureof the dynamic interaction betweentext and reader. His main purpose is to explainthe readingprocess, and to provideaframework hat may allow us to compareand analyze our individualreadings.

Basicto Iser's heory is his notion that meaning is not a given in the literary ext.Itcannot be detected, excavated,or uncovered,but instead has to be producedintheinteraction between text and reader. The structureof the reading process is inter-

subjective,whereas the realizationis differentfromreader o reader.There is not onecorrectproductionof meaning, but necessarilya spectrumof actualizationsowing tothe active involvement of the reader in the processing of the text [p. 230]. The

pedagogic consequences of this theory are that the teacher of literature hould "paymore attention to the processthan to the product.Hisobject shouldthereforebe, notto explain a work, but to reveal the conditions that bringabout its various possibleeffects. Ifhe clarifiesthe potentialof a text, he will no longerfall into the fataltrapof

tryingto impose one meaningon his reader,as if that were the right,or at least the

best, interpretation" p. 18]. Iser'sviews concerning the role of the interpreteraresimilarto those suggested by Roland Barthes nS/Z: "Tointerpreta text is not to giveit some moreor less arbitrary nd uniquemeaning; it is, on the contrary, o acknowl-

edge the plurality of which it is composed [. . .]" [Paris: Seuil, 1970, p. 11]. But

Barthesplaces the pluralityof meaningsin the text, whereas Isersees any productionof meaningas stemmingfrom the interaction betweentext and reader.Iser's

mphasison the process,and not on the product, isvery closely relatedto his view of the natureof modern art and literature;he sees them as attemptingto engage the reader orviewer ina process,rather hanto offer him a finished,harmonious,"closed"product.He regards his feature of modern literature,with its increased insistency on reader

participation,as a significantelement forexplaining he demiseof the "classicalquestfor the meaningof a text" and the necessity to formulatea communication-oriented

theory of literature pp. 10-19; see also "ImLichteder Kritik,"n Rezeptionsisthetik.Theorie und Praxis,ed. RainerWarning MOnchen,1975), pp. 329-30].

Iser'sdominant concern can be apprehendedin the following question: why dowe need fiction, and what effect can it have on us? His theory addressesthe large

topic of "theactual function of literature n the overall make-upof man"[p. xi]. Thecentral function of fictitious texts, according to Iser, is their potential to make thereaderawareof his familiarnormsand codes, andtherebyto effect a certaindegreeofliberation from the limitationsof his accustomed views and beliefs. Inorderto havethis potential effect, the literary ext has to have certainproperties.It has to invokeand problematize, question andeven negatethe reader'snorms, i.e., hisexpectations,in order to make him aware of their limitations, and to make him imagine "new"codes. It is this very intricate, dynamic process between text and readerthat Iser

attempts to explain on every page of The Act of Reading. His emphasis on the

potential effect of the literarytext on the reader prompts him to criticize NewCriticismas

having"separatedrtistic

echniquefrom its

pragmatic unctions," herebyhaving"made it into an end in itself--in this way both setting and reachingits own

limits"[p. 15]. In stressingthe social function of literature,Iser is able to make a

powerfulargumentfor the importanceand usefulness of readingliteratureat a timewhen the benefits of literarystudies are being questioned by students and adminis-tratorsof educational institutions.This book identifies the social function of literaturein any historicalperiodas its capacityto convey "somethingnew,"thereby suggestingthat at any moment in the historyof literature here is a literary"avant-garde."

Inconstructinghis model, Iseruses aspects of phenomenologicaltheory in orderto explorethe mode of existence of the literarywork,elements of hermeneutic heoryfor the analysis of the reader'sunderstandingof himself when confrontedwith the

48



work,and gestalt theory in orderto diagram he interactionbetween workand reader.The major impulsefor Iser's ormulationof an aesthetics of responsehas to be seen in

Roman Ingarden'sconcepts of schematized aspects and repertoire,as presented in

TheLiteraryWorkof Art,and his analysisof the processof concretization,as outlinedin TheCognitionof the LiteraryWorkof Art. A briefaccount of Ingarden's heory may

indicate similaritiesbetween Ingarden's nd Iser'smodels, as well as clarifythe majordifferences between the two theories.

Ingarden'snterestinthe mode of existence of the literaryworkwas promptedbyhis work on the general philosophical problem of idealism-realism. In selectingliteratureas a prime example of a purely intentional object, Ingardenattempted to

question Husserl's ranscendental idealism "which conceives the real world and its

elements as purely intentional objectivities which have their ontic and determiningbasis in the depths of the pure consciousness that constitutes them" [The LiteraryWork of Art,tr. George G. Grabowicz (Evanston:NorthwesternUniv. Press,1973),

p. lxxii]. Incontrastto Husserl,Ingarden ees "in ideal concepts an ontic foundation

of word meaningsthat enables them to have intersubjective dentityand an onticallyautonomous mode of existence" [p. lxxiv]. In The LiteraryWork of Art, Ingardenthereforepursues he ontology of the text, that is, the "essentialanatomy," tssequenceof parts, layersof schemata and strata hat guide the individualreadingor concretiza-tion of the work. He conceives of the literarywork of art as a skeleton, which only

through the process of reading is concretized and made into an aesthetic object.While Ingardenpresents the schemata and strata in The LiteraryWork of Art, he

specifically deals with the reading process in his later study, The Cognitionof the

LiteraryWork of Art[tr. RuthAnn Crowleyand KennethR. Olson (Evanston:North-

western Univ. Press,1973)], where he introducesgestalt theory as a useful model for

the analysis of concretization [p. 204]. In this later study, Ingardendistinguishes

between three types of cognition: the preaesthetic investigative cognition whichreconstructsthe schemata and structureof the work,and which identifies the placesof indeterminacy,without filling them in; the aesthetic cognition, which fills in the

indeterminaciesand establishes a harmonious,unified aesthetic object; and what we

may call the post-aestheticcognition, which reflectson the aesthetic concretization.

Since Ingarden s primarilyconcerned with the aesthetic cognition, he analyzes the

synthesizingactivitythe readerhas to perform n linking up the differentsegmentsof

meaningand filling in the places of indeterminacyalong the temporal- rogressionof

reading, inorderto experiencethe "polyphonicharmony" reatedby the synthesisof

the horizontal series of text segments and the vertical interrelationshipsof the dif-

ferent strata.We can find aspects of Ingarden'smodel not only in Iser'swork, but in several

recent theories of literature.Hisanalysisof the schematic structureof the literary extforms the basis forMikel Dufrenne's irstvolume of Ph6nomenologiede I'exp6rienceesthetique,andWolfgangKayser'sDassprachlicheKunstwerk. hemostwidely known

presentationof Ingarden's extual strata was written by Rene Wellek in the central

chapterof Theoryof Literature, ntitled "TheMode of Existenceof the LiteraryWorkof Art."Unfortunately, his distortedand briefsummaryhas been the only exposureto

Ingarden or numerousstudents of literary heory [see Ingarden's ritiqueof Wellekentitled "Werte,Normenund Strukturennach ReneWellek,"Deutsche Viertelijahres-schrift forLiteraturwissenschaftnd Geistesgeschichte,XL 1966)

pp.43-55].

Isertakes over Ingarden'sbasic model of the two poles of the literarywork: theartistictext consistingof the textualstrategies,perspectives,andschemata created bythe author,and the aesthetic object realizedbythe reader n the act of concretization.But Isersees Ingarden'smodel still basedon the classical concept of art as polyphonicharmony, as a symbolic representationof wholeness. The norms of organic unitytherefore serve Ingardenas criteria ordistinguishingbetween true and false concreti-zations of a work. Since the differentstrata of a literarywork have to be "properly"linkedup bythe reader norder o producethis harmony, he interactionbetween textand readerremainsvery limited.Concretizationamounts to the "correct" ctualizationof the potential elements of a work,therebydeprivingthe interactionof itsdynamics.

diacritics/June 1980 49



The increased ndeterminacies n modernliteraturepose a great problemfor Ingarden,since they impede and endangerthe reader'sestablishment of polyphonic harmony,or even renderit impossible. Moreover,Ingardenconsidersthe actualization of theaesthetic object and the experience of its unity as an end in itself [pp. 171-79].Ingarden'sadherenceto the classical concept of organic unity as basic criterionfor

the reader'sconcretization seems still to be widely accepted today. It was centraltoNew Criticism, and survives in Michael Riffaterre'srecent Semiotics of Poetry[(Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1978), p. 12]. In contrast to Ingarden, Iserestablishes indeterminacyas the basic condition for communication. Indefiningthefunction of the literarywork not as leadingto the experienceof polyphonic harmony,but as triggering he reader's maginationin orderto recognize the limitations of hishabitual normsand codes, Iserrejectsthe concept of organic unity as a criterion for

adequate concretization, and he pragmatizes he aesthetic experience.Anthologies, such as RainerWarning'sRezeptionsaesthetik [(MCinchen:Fink,

1975)] and a recent issue of Poetique [39 (1979)] may give the impressionthat the

"Constance School" is workingwith a uniformtheory, that Iserand Jausssharethesame model andthe same presuppositions.Alert o this misunderstanding, serclearlydistinguishes between his theory of aesthetic response (Wirkungstheorie)and the

theoryof the aestheticsof reception (Rezeptionstheorie) stablishedby Jauss.WhereasIserfocuses on the aesthetic potential of a text which can elicit several responses,Jauss s concernedwith actual historicalconcretizationsof texts;his aim is to analyzethese receptions sociologically. A theoryof response,accordingto Iser,"hasits rootsin the text; a theoryof receptionarises from a historyof readers' udgments" p. x].

Inorder to contributeto an understandingof Iser's"Germanicphenomenology"and some of its problems, I shall attempt to firstexplainthe main structureand keyconcepts of his theory, and add my questions and critical remarksonly aftersuch a

presentation.In describingthe dynamic interaction between text and reader,Iser is forced to

analyzeeach component inthis processseparately.He firstpresents he text'sschemataand their functions (PartII),then the operations of the reader, i.e., the structureof

processing hese schemata(PartIII),and finallythe mainconditions for this interactionbetween textual schemata and reader (Part IV). The communication process thatinterests Iser is the following:the author, in orderto communicate"somethingnew,"selects elements from the familiarworld and defamiliarizes these aspects througha

strategicuse of different,even contradictoryperspectives.The reader's magination,guided by these schemata, attempts to build consistencies between the different

textualsegmentsand perspectives n the time-flow of reading.Butthe reader'sbuildingof a seriesof constantlymodified gestalten from the varioussegments is frustratedbythe text's contradictions and negations, which cancel the gestalten that he built onthe basis of textual segments and his own habitualframe of reference.These textual

strategiesof contradictionand negation have the potential to make the reader deate

"somethingnew,"which is not, and could not be given inthe text, since this"newness"cannot be communicated in familiarcodes. This aesthetic experience of the "new"

may makethe reader aware of the limitations of his own familiar norms and codes,and may lead to his restructuring f his habitualframe of reference.

Thisbrief outline of Iser'smodel emphasizes hisview of literatureas the attemptto communicate

"somethingnew."The literaryext fulfillsthis functionif it is fictional,

i.e., if it does not fulfill our expectations, since only a text that runscounter to our

habitualinterpretation f the world( our sense of reality)can promptour imaginationto ideate "somethingnew."Intaking aspects of the familiarrepertoireof conventionsout of their social context and combiningthem unexpectedly,the authordepragma-tizes these familiar norms in orderto make them subject to scrutiny.The extent of

the reader'sactivity in reading depends on the degree to which the text confirmsordistortsthe reader's amiliarnorms.The functionof literature s therefore to questionand invalidatethe thoughtsystemswhich it haschosen for its repertoire.This deauto-matizationof conventions has as its goal to "rearrange xistingpatternsof meaning"[p. 72]. Therepertoire nvokedis the meeting groundbetween text and reader,butthe

50



text's strategicviolation of traditionalsocial, cultural, and literarynorms disorientsand restructures he reader'scomprehension of the familiar.Only through a fictivework that suspends the reader'saccustomed relationship with the world, can he

recognizethe limitationsanddeficienciesof traditionalcodes and norms. Isercertainlyderives his notions of "defamiliarization"and "deautomatization" from Russian

Formalismand Czech Structuralism.But in pragmatizingtheir concepts by shiftingthe focus fromsemanticsto pragmatics n hisanalysisof the impactof these deviations

on the readerand his responseto them, Iserattemptsto overcome the Formalistand

Structuralistnotion of violation of social and literarynorms as an aesthetic end in

itself.Iser's itle "TheActof Reading" stoo general,andthereforemisleading,since his

whole study is based on his narrow definition of communication as the process in

which "somethingnew" is conveyed. Althoughhis model is applicableto all readings,Iser is only interested in literary exts, and among these texts only in those which

attempt to communicate "something new." It is the epistemological problem con-

cerning this particularcase of communication that is at the center of his theory:"Consequently,a theoryof aesthetic response is confrontedwith the problemof how

a hithertounformulatedsituation can be processed and, indeed, understood" p. x].He thereforeestablishes an implicit hierarchyof literary exts: those inwhich "some-

thing new and significant took place" [The Implied Reader(Baltimore:The Johns

Hopkins Univ. Press,1974), p. xii], and those which simply confirm the traditional

social and literarynorms.This criterionof the "new"guided Iser's election of fictional

texts for TheImpliedReader,and it is againthe centralcriterionin his formulationof

the theory upon which his earlieranalyses of literary exts were based. Isertherefore

regards iteraturewhich affirmsthe prevailingnorms as trivial[p. 77]. He includes in

this group of "inferior"literatureworks of socialist realism, since they generallyconfirmthe values alreadyknownto the readers[p.83]. Indidactic, "closed"fictions,the reader'sparticipation s restricted o a simple"yes-nodecision"[p. 191]. Indetermi-

nacy and competing perspectives are therefore reduced in these texts, in order to

prestructure asy connectability of the textual segments, and therebyto assuregoodcontinuation. Popular iterature s also uninteresting or Isersince these works cannotafford to frustrate the readers'expectations by deconstructing their cultural and

social normsif they want to appeal to a wide public and be commerciallysuccessful.

Iserdefines the readingof such literatureas "lightreading," ince the readergenerallyremainsrelatively passive.

Among the "good" literaryworks Iserfavors the novel because it provides"the

most variegated facets pertinent to an analysis of the act of reading" [p. xii]. Itincludes in its repertoirea largeportionof extratextual ocial norms,and it contains

the various conflicting perspectives of narrator, individual characters, plot, and

intendedreader,which the readerhas to synthesize. Lyricpoetrynormally acksthese

diverse perspectives,and its repertoire,accordingto Iser,is largelylimited to literarynormsandtraditions.Filmsand theatricalperformances ontainthe variouscompeting

perspectives, but they diminish the viewer'sopportunityto ideate, since he is giventhe image, and thereforedoes not have to produce it.

Butthe centralquestion remains o be answered:how can a "good"novel convey

"somethingnew?"Obviously this newness cannot be expressedconceptually, other-

wise it would not be radicallynew. In order to convey, to suggest this inexpressible"newness" the author has to recode, question, negate the familiar norms by establishing

a series of contradictory perspectives without providinga synthesis. Invoking,and

then questioning the familiarnormswill makethe readerawareof the limitations ofhis convictions, and his imagination will be triggered by this discovery to ideate

"somethingnew" which may lead to a recodingof his own norms. It is this essential

asymmetrybetween text strategiesdeconstructingthe familiarnorms,and the reader

believing in these norms,which producesa dynamic,dialectic interaction,a commu-

nication of "something new." Isertherefore sees as a central condition for such acommunication the indeterminaciescreated by blanks and negations. The focal partof a novel is therefore not what is said, but what is not said. Blanks leave open the




reader's ideational activity. The more modern the text, "the more will it fulfill itsminus function"' [p. 208]. He sees negation come "into full flower" in modernliterature p. 219]. Hisemphasison the reader's deationalactivitythereforeseems tofavor experimental works of the twentieth century. Yet surprisingly,most of his

examples in The Act of Reading are taken from Fielding'sTom Jones and Joseph

Andrews.Since Iserexplains the necessity for a communication-orientedtheory ofliteratureprimarily n view of the partialnatureof modern literature,do we have toconclude that.Fielding's novels are "modern,"or do we have to redefine "modernliterature" n order to solve this seeming contradiction in Iser'sbook? Iserprobablyconceives of "open," norm-breakingexts as "modern"or avant-garde n relation totheir historicalperiod. These texts, which attempt to convey "somethingnew," havebeen producedin all ages, butthey seem especially numerousandeven moreradicallydiscontinuous in the twentieth century.

But how adequate are the Fieldingexamples in illustratingIser'stheory?This

question raises a crucial point: can we have an aesthetic experience in reading

literature rom the past? Many twentieth-centuryreadersdo not sharethe repertoire(beliefs, norms,customs) of Fielding'scontemporaries.We can, of course, learnandread about them, but that does not make them our norms. Hence the negation or

questioning of those norms might not necessarily triggera reorientationof our own

beliefs, since our familiarworld had not been directly questioned throughthe textual

strategies and negations of those norms in a literarywork of the past. We can, withsome difficulty, roughly reconstructsome aspects of the horizon of expectation of

Fielding's contemporaries from the repertoire invoked by the text, and therefore

appreciatethose frustrationsof expectations that led to an expansionof the horizonof Fielding's ontemporaries.In our readingof a Fieldingnovel we have to synthesizethe different perspectives and fill in the blanks in order to produce meaning. In a

second readingwe mayalso discoverthe strategies throughwhich Fieldingattemptedto convey "somethingnew." Butthat "newness" s probablynot that radically"new"

forour horizon of expectation.Ourproductionof meaning probablydoes not leadto

a directquestioningof ourown values. Itis thereforequestionablethat older texts can

triggerthe reading experience which Iser describes, since "newness"in Iser's con-

ception must of necessity be seen historically. In his recent essay on "TheCurrentSituation of LiteraryTheory,"Iser sees the advantage of a communication-oriented

theory over a structuralistor functionalist model in its ability to account for the

continuing effect of a past work on us today: "Thequestion left unansweredby the

function concept--namely, the continuing validityof the literarywork-can now be

approached in terms of the communication achieved by the work"[New LiteraryHistory, XI, 1(1979), p. 15]. This is a very useful insight, but the difference of

communication that takes place between Fielding'sworks and his contemporaries,and that between the same texts and laterreadersneeds to be explained. Iser s aware

of this problem, and he suggests that a later reader cannot be a participant,but an

observer[pp. 78-79].We may furtherwonder: just how "open"must Fielding'sworks be in order to

serve as good illustrations or Iser'smodel? We certainlyfind a numberof conflicting

perspectivesin these novels, and in producingthe meaningwe cannot, up to a point,

identifywith any of these perspectives. But it seems that Fielding providesa certain

synthesis at the end, at least in the case of TomJones,when he writes: "Whatever n

the natureof Joneshad a tendency to vice has been correctedby continual conversa-tion with this good man [AIIworthy], nd by his union with the lovely and virtuous

Sophia. He hath also, by reflection on his past follies, acquired a discretion and

prudencevery uncommon in one of his lively parts" The Complete Worksof HenryFielding(New York:Barnes& Noble, 1967), vol. V, p. 373]. This observation is onlymeant to point out the importanceof the last pages of a novel, in which the authoroften wants to make sure that the reader has assembled the meaning "correctly."Some authors make this strategyratherobvious, when they entitle the last page oftheir novel "TheMetaphorDelivered" See NormanMailer,Armiesof the Night(NewYork:New AmericanLibrary, 968), p. 288].




In additionto passagesfrom Fielding'snovels, Iser'sother examplesareprimarilytaken from twentieth-century literature: Beckett, Joyce, Faulkner,and Compton-Burnett. These works excellently illustrateIser'smodel. They radicallyquestion the

repertoireof today'sreaderwhose expectations are indeed frustrated n readingtheseworks. Iserbrilliantlyanalyzesthe potentialreadingprocessin lightof these texts, and

he emphasizes the potential effect of the reader'sexperienceon his life. Butwhen westudythe receptionsof these works,we grow less optimistic concerningthe abilityofthese texts to convey "something new." Since these works question the reader'sbeliefs, convictions, and values, and since they makegreatdemands on the reader's

activity, they seem to be more often ignored than experienced. After readingtwo

pages of the Benjysection, manyreadershave rejectedFaulkner'sTheSoundand the

Furyas utter confusion, without having experiencedthat "hereinlies the key to the

meaning of this novel: through the continual cancellation of the mental imagesprovoked by the blanks,the senselessness of life-which Faulknerndicates throughthe 'Macbeth' quotation that forms his title--becomes a living experience for the

reader.Thenegationof his own mental imagesguarantees hat this experiencewill berealfor him"[p. 220].Owingto the rejectionof the bookas confusion or nonsensetheaesthetic experiencecannottake place. Thereceptionof Nietzsche'sworksmayserveas another ratherdisappointing example. His texts certainly fit Iser'scategory of

"open"works.Theyinvoke and negatethe reader's epertoireandattemptto stimulatethe reader's maginationso as to make him aware of his "humanall too human"codesand values. Buthow manytimes have these texts been "translated"nto "familiar,alltoo familiar"norms?These readershave selected some aspects, filled in the gapswiththeir own familiarnorms,andestablishedconsistencieswhen any consistencybuildingis radicallyquestioned by the textual strategies.Nietzsche exposed this "translation"of everythingintothe reader'sown familiar rameof referenceas "willto power."The

question we raise is: how far do human beings automatically ignorethe "new" andtranslateanytext into their familiarnorms?And how farcan this processbe deautoma-tized by textual strategies in order to provide the experience of "something new"?Iser seems to be concerned with this problem,when he writes that a readerwho is

stronglycommittedto an ideologicalposition is less inclined to be open to "somethingnew":"Hewill not allow his norms o become a theme, becauseas suchthey are auto-

matically open to the criticalview inherent in the virtualizedpositions that form the

background.And if he is inducedto participatein the events of the text, only to findthat he is then supposedto adopt a negative attitudetowardvalues he does not wishto question, the result will often be open rejection of the book and his author"

[p. 202]. We seem to enter a vicious circle. If, in order to be open to this "newness,"the readercannot stronglybelieve inthe familiar rameof reference, hen the reorgani-zation provokedbythe textualstrategiesis also less effective, since the readerdid nothold these convictions very firmly. But this seems to be a central problem in alltheories concerningthe complex andveryimportantquestionof new experiencesandhumanchange.The reader'sunderstandableesistance o changeshould notencourageus to turn our backson literature hat attempts to convey "somethingnew," and toreturnto traditionalliteratureand models of aesthetic experiencethat are based onreader dentification,as Jaussrecentlydid in hisAesthetischeErfahrungndliterarischeHermeneutik Munchen:Fink,1977]. Suchtraditionalmodels will be of very little usein helping us understand he readingprocess and social function involved in texts byBeckett, Joyce, Faulkner,Sterne, Fielding,and most of the significant literatureandartof the twentieth century.We should rather,as Isersuggests, examinethe readers'and our own reasonsforresisting iterature hat attemptsto convey "somethingnew."Such considerationsmay lead to a scrutinyof ourown values and criteriaof criticismwhich may have preventedus fromexperiencing iterature nd artthat do not conformto our criteria.

Iser'sanalysis of the recoding process within the reader leads us to a closerexamination of his sharpdistinction between meaningand significance.Significance,as we have noted above, is the interpretationof meaning. But as soon as the readerexplains his aesthetic experience, i.e., meaning, "the effect is extinguished,because

54



the effect is in the nature of an experience and not an exercise in explanation" [p. 22].What then is the relationship between meaning and significance? Iser quotes Ricoeur

and stresses that meaning and significance are two distinct stages of comprehension.This separation supports Iser's tendency to regard the first stage of comprehension

(meaning, the aesthetic experience) as being much more intersubjective than the

reader's interpretation of meaning. But only in certain passages of his study does itseem that Iser is tempted to delay the "subjective" element in the reading process to

the second stage of comprehension: "The experience of the text, then, is brought

about by an interaction that cannot be designated as private or arbitrary. What is

private is the reader's incorporation of the text into his own treasure-house of

experience, but as far as the reader-oriented theory is concerned, this simply means

that the subjectivist element of reading comes at a later stage in the process of

comprehension than critics of the theory may have supposed: namely, where the

aesthetic effect results in a restructuring of experience" [p. 24]. Iser's tendency to

establish an unbridgeable gap between meaning, i.e., the intersubjective, non-semantic

experience of the "new," and significance, i.e., the "translation"of this

experienceinto

the familiar norms and codes, seems to contradict his numerous statements concerning

the process involved in the production of meaning, which necessarily always already

involves a dialectical relationship between the familiar and unfamiliar, between

meaning and significance [see the section on "Building Images," particularly the

relationship between theme and significance (pp. 145-47), and Iser's models of fore-

ground-background, and theme-horizon]. Iser's notions of "newness," as well as the

relationship between his use of meaning and significance need further development

in order to become central critical concepts. In his subsequent essay on "The Current

Situation of Literary Theory," he changes his key terms in order to avoid possible

misunderstandings. The fictitious work is now seen as "the pragmatically conditioned

gestalt of the imaginary," reception as "the process of experiencing the imaginary

gestalt" (i.e., the production of the aesthetic object, of meaning), and interpretation

as the translation of the aesthetic object into a concrete meaning (i.e., significance)

[New Literary History, XI,1 (1979), pp. 17-19]. In changing his terminology, Iser avoids

the semantic connotation of "meaning" to designate something non-semantic. What

he formerly called "meaning," is now called "experience of the imaginary," and what

he called "significance," is now a concrete, "semantic" meaning. But the most

noticeable change is Iser's replacing "something new" with the more neutral, less

provocative, but also less historical term "imaginary."A reader of The Act of Reading may encounter a major stumbling block in Iser's

structuralist description of the text. How can he describe the text without first havingto produce the meaning, and then, on the basis of his own meaning production,

construct the textual strategies that he found central in his involvement as reader? In

other words: what is the status of Iser's descriptions of the schemata, blanks, inde-

terminacies, perspectives, and text strategies? This is a problem for any phenome-

nologist, since the object is dependent on the act of consciousness, and since the

object is never accessible in its totality of properties. Stanley Fish provides a radical

answer to this problem. He regards any description of textual structures as something

brought to the text by the one who describes them: "[. . .] formal units are always a

function of the interpretative model one brings to bear; they are not 'in' the text." But

having made this statement, Fish has to admit that he does not know what he

interprets ["Interpreting the Variorum," Critical Inquiry, II, 3 (1976), pp. 478-479; see

also William Ray, "Supersession and the Subject: A Reconsideration of Stanley Fish's

'Affective Stylistics,'" Diacritics [Fall, 1978], pp. 60-71]. The question concerning the

ontological status of textual structures is a central problem for Ingarden, which Iser

seems to inherit. How can Ingarden describe the text potential, when each concretiza-

tion only realizes part of this potential? In the chapter on "The Ontic Position of a

LiteraryWork," Ingarden postulates "the ontically autonomous basis of existence of

the literary work" [The Literary Work of Art, p. 60], which consists of the stratum of

phonetic formations and phenomena, and the stratum of semantic units [The Cognition

of the Literary Work of Art, p. 337]. In positing a certain autonomy of the formal




structuresof the text, Ingarden hen is able to analyze froman intersubjective tand-

point the accuracy of the reader'sconcretization. But in his "Afterword," ngardenindicates his awarenessof this unsolved problem:"Inmany questions I had to try,even to dare,to leavethe positionof cautious reserveandto overcomethe difficultiesI saw. Thus I tried primarily o express more clearly the distinction between the

literarywork of art in its schematic structureand its concretizations. It had to beshown that it is possibleto apprehend he workof artstrictlyin its schematic structureand in its mere potentialitieswithout therebyachieving a concretization which has

alreadybeen filled out and without removingthe potentialities by actualizingthem"

[p. 421]. But Ingardenis aware that "we can have no absolute guaranteethat ourreconstructionis absolutely faithfulto a literaryworkof art" p. 356].

How does Iser solve this problemof describingthe structuresof a text? Forhis

analysisof the formalfeaturesIser ndeed borrows he terminologyof the structuralists.Certainof his formulationsmay suggest to the readerthat he not only takes over the

terminology, but also the ontological assumptionsof Ingardenand the structuralists,

in order to construct his theory. In his recent essay, however, Iserwrites that it is theadvantageof a communication-oriented heory not to be limitedby such presupposi-tions: "Its one concern is to clarify processes of transmissionand reception, and its

stunningsuccess in literary heory is largelydue to the fact that itsoperationalnatureis not hedged in by clearlydefined or historicallyconditioned presuppositions--suchas those underwhich the structureconcept has to labor." But three sentences later,we read: "In literary theory, therefore, the communication concept incorporatesthose of structureandfunction, and indeed cannot do without them if it is to describethe processof transmission nd reception" "TheCurrent ituationof Literary heory,"p. 14]. Whathappensto the presuppositionsof structuralism ndfunctionalism?Iser's

borrowings romdifferenttheoretical modelswhich posit differentassumptionsseem

initially problematic,because he does not specify how the presuppositionsof gestaltpsychology, speech act theory, psychoanalysis, phenomenology, structuralismandfunctionalism are modified by their being absorbed into his model. But Iser makes

very clear that his theory presents an ideal model which uses elements from othertheories only as a heuristic device. He is "not concerned with provingits validity somuch as with helping to devise a framework or mappingout and guidingempiricalstudies of reader reaction"[p. x]. Since any empirical inquiry is always based onheuristic assumptions or an ideal model, Iser provides such a heuristic frame ofreferencein TheAct of Reading.Heemphatically insiststhat his model should not be

reified, but should hermeneutically interact with the empirical data which will

necessarily change and modify Iser'sframework.Given the heuristic status of histheory, Iserwill welcome any changes of his model that our own empiricalreadingexperiences prompt.

The unquestionablemeritof TheAct of Readingconsists precisely in its makingus aware of our own reading process. In focusing our attention on our own act of

producingthe meaningof a text we will become moreawareof the textualstrategies,of our own dynamic relations to those strategies, and thus of the importance of

analyzing the reading process for the study of literatureand literarytheory. Iser's

working model of the interaction between the reader and norm-breakingiterature

presents us with a compelling outline of the intersubjectivestructureof such a

reading process-an outline to which we can appeal for contextual support as we

pursuethe analysis of our own readingexperiences. In stressingthe meta-semioticfunction of "avant-garde"iteraturein any historical period, Iser not only makes a

strongclaim concerningliterature's bilityto make the readerawareof the limitationsof his own cultural norms and codes, of his participationin an evolving culturallydeterminedactivity; he also points to the way in which literaturecomposes its own

history-as a historyof reading.

56

rudolf kuenzli the inter subjective structure of the reading process.a communication oriented theory...

Documents