Reader-Response Theory: The School Of Russian Formism

The meaning of a literary work resides with the reader; a statement that the school of Russian Formalism would disagree with. Eichenbaum, Schlovsky and other scholars would argue that the audience has little to no relation with the text and therefore, cannot be a vessel of meaning for a literary work. For formalists, the form of the literary work creates the meaning that readers desperately seek. However, there is another school of literary theory that would argue against the Formalist thought; the school of reader-response theory. Reader-response theory is where theorists believe that “a reader actively” participates “in the production of textual meaning” (Tompkins xv). Reader-response theory studies the reader and the audience and how they
Jauss, Iser and Fish each believe that the reader and audience are vital in interpreting, understanding or finding meaning inside the text. Stanley Fish is crucial in discussing the meaning of the text and the reader as he is “one of the most controversial figures in contemporary literary theory,” however, Wolfgang Iser is necessary to examine also as he deals with the reader finding meaning in their own way (Fish 2067). Both Fish and Iser believe that the reader should and must interact with the text to create or find meaning. Fish believes that meaning is within the reader, ready to be made through interpretation, whilst Iser believes that by filling in the “blanks” meaning can be found or made (Iser 1671). According to both theorists, there is little to no meaning without the reader and I agree with this statement
However, he does believe that meaning can be drawn from the text by the reader through their interaction with the literary work. Iser believes that “the reader must act as co-creator of the work by supplying that portion of it which is not written but only implied” (Tompkins xv). The portion that has not been written, to Iser, provides communication between the text and the reader. These portions can be labelled as “gaps” or “blanks” in the text (Iser 1671). The gaps or blanks make reading “a process of discovery” rather than being a “passive or static” act (1671).The reader goes on an adventure through questioning the text and filling in the gaps. In my own opinion, a reader can find meaning through the missing pieces of a text. However, this meaning may seem like a “mere subjective fabrication of the reader’s” but in fact, it shows that the text is inexhaustible and can be read continuously over the years (Tompkins xv). The text, by harbouring blanks, does not have one set meaning. The blanks form a kind of interpretation, which fan forums and communities are based around. If an author does not precisely say what the text means or what its message is then it is the reader who must decide on these important factors. We interpret the meaning of Shakespeare, Virginia Woolf and other such authors by helping the author fill in the blanks. Fan communities also fill in the blanks that authors leave them by