Appleman, Chapter 3 - The Lens of Reader Response

I found this chapter comforting because I have a fear of losing some of the purpose of language arts classes if we rely too heavily on reader response theory for our pedagogy. We can't rely solely on one theory in the classroom – especially if that one theory is reader response. This theory, in particular, requires a background in other theories to give it power. Without a true understanding of how texts work, there is a real danger of reader response being nothing more than a reader's emotional reaction to a text.

The response becomes more about the reader and not enough about the text. I am a little troubled by some of Appleman's findings. Her analysis of the response that Mark and Ellen had to Running Fiercely Toward a High Thin Sound does not jive with my feelings that good literature should be universally relevant. Appleman is trying to make the claim that a weakness of reader response is that it assumes that all readers will be able to make a connection with a given text. Obviously, Mark and Ellen had difficulties connecting with this particular text (albeit for different reasons), but too often I find this is an excuse for not reaching for it. Appleman does say that completing reader response diagrams force students to come face to face with the differences they may have with characters in literature they are reading (52). This should be a jumping off point, not an end.

Despite my qualms with Appleman on this point, ultimately I agree with her opinion that students need to be taught with multiple theories. They have greater success if they can put a name to what they are trying to say and if they have specific lenses to look through when analyzing a text.