Introduction and Summary
The process of reading is often taken for granted, yet there are underlying issues that are worth discussing. In the provided excerpt, Rosenblatt renders the idea of reading and explores its numerous iterations. As a rule, the process of reading used to be interpreted as interactive due to the unceasing process of 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 realize that the phenomenon represents introspection and a spiral relationship between a reader and the signs in the text, as shown in Rosenblatt’s “Literature as Exploration.”
Thus, the purpose with which a reader approaches a text defines the way in which the meaning of the discourse under analysis will be deconstructed. The interaction between a reader and the signs on the page creates sense and allows a reader to explore it in depth (Rosenblatt 26). As a result, the meaning of the text is shaped under the influence of the notions and concepts that define the reader’s philosophy. Goulish expresses a similar idea by stating that reading a particular text inevitably entails the propagation of one’s own vocabulary (5). The introduction of personal opinions and philosophies into a narrative is inevitable and thus needs to be recognized.
Connections to Goulish’s Work
The problem of criticism as a process that does not imply reciprocity should be addressed. According to Goulish, the identified action causes a personality change due to the introduction of new ideas and concepts into a personal worldview (7). Nonetheless, there is 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 in order to imbue it with additional concepts and terms.
Furthermore, revisiting the process of reading, in general, and the notion of understanding, in particular, one may need to return to the idea of metacognition. As Goulish explains, when consuming a particular text, a reader inevitably infers its meaning based on a variety of approaches used to deconstruct it (Rosenblatt 26). Goulish compares the specified process with rain due to its omnipresence (8). Indeed, the text under analysis points to the necessity for a reader to approach the presented information from all the standpoints of which they are aware of. As a result, understanding is achieved.
Therefore, the use of the traditional terms accepted in the literature analysis, such as the reaction of a reader toward the text, complicates the process of studying the effects that a specific discourse produces on its audience. Instead, one should consider using the description methods that allow drawing a line between the text itself and the meaning that it helps to create (Rosenblatt 26). As a result, more accurate analysis of a text can be performed, with an in-depth inspection of the
Conclusion
The perception of a specific text used to be seen as primarily the interactions between a reader and the chosen discourse, yet a more profound study of the subject matter indicates that a reader constructs notions and themes independently, being influenced by the personal philosophy. Therefore, the relationships between a reader and a text should be seen as a spiral rather than directly reciprocal. The specified change will help to view the product of deconstructing a text more objectively.
Works Cited
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 Modern Language Association of America 1995.