Reader and Text Relationships Essay (Critical Writing)
Introduction and Summary
The procedure of reading is frequently overlooked, yet you can find underlying conditions that are worth discussing. In the provided excerpt, Rosenblatt renders the thought of reading and explores its numerous iterations. Generally, the procedure of reading was previously interpreted as interactive because of the unceasing procedure for drawing connections between a reader’s perception of the represented ideas and the viewpoint conveyed in a text.
However, on closer inspection of the reading process, one will recognize that the phenomenon represents introspection and a spiral relationship between a reader and the signs in the written text, as shown in Rosenblatt’s “Literature as Exploration.”
Thus, the reason with which a reader approaches a text defines how this is of the discourse under analysis will undoubtedly be deconstructed. The interaction between a reader and the signs on the page creates sense and allows a reader to explore it comprehensive (Rosenblatt 26). Consequently, the meaning of the written text is shaped consuming the notions and concepts define the reader’s philosophy. Goulish expresses an identical idea by stating that reading a specific text inevitably entails the propagation of one’s own vocabulary (5). The introduction of personal opinions and philosophies right into a narrative is inevitable and therefore must be recognized.
Connections to Goulish’s Work
The issue of criticism as an activity that will not imply reciprocity ought to be addressed. In accordance with Goulish, the identified action causes a personality change because of the introduction of new ideas and concepts right into a personal worldview (7). Nonetheless, there’s little to no interaction between a reader and a discourse; instead, the former subjects the latter to criticism, deconstructing its meaning and assembling it again to be able to imbue it with additional concepts and terms.
Furthermore, revisiting the procedure of reading, generally, and the idea of understanding, in particular, you can need to go back to the thought of metacognition. As Goulish explains, when consuming a specific text, a reader inevitably infers its meaning predicated on a number of approaches used to deconstruct it (Rosenblatt 26). Goulish compares the specified process with rain because of its omnipresence (8). Indeed, the written text under analysis points to the need for a reader to approach the presented information from all of the standpoints of which they’re aware of. Consequently, understanding is achieved.
Therefore, the usage of the original terms accepted in the literature analysis, like the result of a reader toward the written text, complicates the procedure of studying the consequences a specific discourse produces on its audience. Instead, you need to contemplate using the description methods that allow drawing a line between your text itself and this is that it helps to generate (Rosenblatt 26). Consequently, more accurate analysis of a text can be carried out, having an in-depth inspection of the
The perception of a particular text was previously viewed as primarily the interactions between a reader and the chosen discourse, yet a far more profound study of the topic matter indicates a reader constructs notions and themes independently, being influenced by the non-public philosophy. Therefore, the relationships between a reader and a text ought to be regarded as a spiral instead of directly reciprocal. The specified change will view the merchandise of deconstructing a text more objectively.
Goulish, Matthew. “Criticism.” Business and Public: Advanced College Essay , edited by Denice Marton and Pat C. Hoy. McGraw-Hill Custom Publishing, 2002, pp. 5-9.
Rosenblatt, Louise. Literature as Exploration, 5th edition. THE PRESENT DAY Language Association of America 1995.