If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Of course it does. But who really cares if it does? It is much the same with music and literature: if something is composed or written and no one reads it, does it exist? Technically it does, but if it is never heard or read, who cares about it? Reader-response theory is a provocative critical theory that has existential ramifications.
The Poetry Foundation says “reader-response criticism argues that a text has no meaning before a reader experiences—reads—it,” and that “...the reader...actively construct[s] texts rather than passively consuming them.” The reader is the existential force.
This is different than a critical approach like formalism which ascribes meaning solely to the elements contained within the text. On the other hand, reader-response looks to each reader for interpretation, whatever that reader has experientially. A poem about war is going to be interpreted differently by a soldier that has served in one compared to a mother who has lost a son in one compared to someone who has had no connection with war. This will also contrast with a formalist interpretation which will only look at the elements of the poem and how they work together toward the theme(s) set forth by the poet.
Look at music as well. You could study the melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and lyric structures and how they work together toward a common goal successfully or unsuccessfully, or interpret it based on how it makes you feel, what it moved within you. This is the same as literature.
I am not endorsing any particular school of thought. They all have their strengths and weaknesses. Still, look at what they all hold in common: a human reader or listener. How does a formalist approach get approached without an approacher? Reader-response takes the common denominator and puts it in the center as the focus of acquiring meaning.
What are the existential ramifications of reader-response theory? If you don’t project your opinions (and not anything that pops in your head: think about your opinions and make sense of them), then they don’t exist. They are trees falling in the forest with no one around to hear them, no one around to chronicle them, to take notice and remember. If you write or compose and keep your works hidden in a lockbox, a filing cabinet, a locker, or a notebook in your bookbag, then what good are they? When you’re dead, what will those potentially viable ideas accomplish if they’re hidden? Another snapping trunk, another loud thud against the forest floor, another unwitnessed event, potentially monumental, even just to one person.
Note: I would also like to mention “The Reception of Reader-Response Theory” by Patricia Harkin: College Composition and Communication, Vol. 56, No. 3, (Feb. 2005), pp. 410-425.
This is an interesting read on the history and modern application of reader-response theory.
