English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Are We Any Closer To Understanding Literature's Function?
Iser gave me an interesting way to look at the activity in literature. Since the semester began, I have been looking at literature from two sides: the side of the author and the side of the reader. According to Iser, the real power is realized between the two. But my question remains, "What is the function of literature." Does his theory bring us any closer to an answer?
For Iser, there are three playing fields, so to speak. First, there is the realm of the object. This is where the author supplies the text, reality is on display, the artist expresses the art, the structure is presented, and the object is available for perception. Second, there is the realm of the subject. This is the place where subjectivity reigns, aesthetics occur, the reader reads, the recipient partakes, and the subject perceives. Third, and more importantly to Iser's approach is the realm of interaction between the first two realms. This is a mysterious realm, not easily analyzed, a virtual place, a place of reciprocal movement, a place of "dynamism".
For Iser, to study the text is to miss the action. To focus on the reader's psychology is to equally miss the mark. But to consider the text along with the relationship of the reader with the text is to see motion and actualization of the work itself. For him, the work is not the text. Instead, the work actually "works" between the two poles.
I think I like this fresh approach to literary theory. This only problem I am having is that it doesn't seem to get at anything tangible. Maybe that's not his intent. However I hope to get at a more concrete idea of why we have art. Sartre offers a reason. I don't believe Iser does.
Iser "stresses that interpretation is neither objective or subjective, but always a result of the dynamic interaction of the text and the reader" (1672). Further, according to the editor of the book, the text's structure guides the reader, while the reader continually modifies her viewpoint. Meaning is not static. How is this not subjective??
Although I appreciated much of what Iser is getting at here, I am not sure I am convinced that the critic ought to try to explore the interaction between the text and the reader. The main reason is that I am not confident that it can be done. I trust the exploration of successful techniques used in the making of literature. But then the question arises: What makes the technique in question successful? I cannot intelligently answer that. I prefer, likewise, that we study the psychology of the reader. But then we must ask ourselves I suppose: Why does the reader react in that way?
Perhaps as long as we don't completely forsake the study of the text or the reader, divorced from the marriage created with their union (does that make sense?), I don't see the harm in considering their interaction with one another.