Appleman Chap. 3

I have always been under the impression that connecting with the text via personal experiences is the best way to get students to make meaning of what they are reading. Appleman argues, however, that this process implemented in reader-response criticism has become oversimplified and often ignores a knowledge of context. She includes a quotation from Bruce Pirie (1997) which reads "I am, however, suspicious of the suggestion that just expressing your personal response is a satisfactory educational attainment, or that such a response could be evaluated for its authenticity" (p. 28).

Although I believe that reader-response is a good way for students to appreciate and become interested in literature, I am suspicious too that the reader simply expressing his or her thoughts may become trivialized and lack sufficient support from the text. But some have said that reader-response criticism is the only way to reach students. I guess this then brings up the issue of will everybody benefit from a wide-range of theories, even those students who are 'at-risk'? Can the reader-response limit the literary interpretive capacities of students? What about the real differences, as opposed to similarities, that exist between a text and the reader? Further, how can you enrich or validate a student's experience since it is unique? These criticisms of reader response speak directly to the cliche 'too much of a good thing can be a bad thing.' Yes it may be the case that students aren't learning enough about a literary work via reader-response, but it does have it's benefits. A simple compromise: Use reader-response in conjunction with other theories. If we use reader-response in moderation, not for all readings, students are less likely to be devoid of meaning when they feel a text does not relate to their personal experiences. Man, Appleman sure is on top of her game!