Comments on: A Critique of Appleman

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 13:16:40 +0000

I agree, jesteban, that Appleman is trying to make room for other theories in the high school English classroom, but, . . . oh this is going to sound silly, but here goes. . . . When we were kids, my older sister was in the Girl Scouts and she and her GS friends used to sing a song that went, “Make new friends, but keep the old / One is silver and the other’s gold.” My point is that, sure, it’s good to introduce new theoretical perspectives, but we don’t have to undermine the old ones. Reader response has been dominant in the secondary classroom at least since the seventies, and, historically one theoretical emphasis has displaced another–like a coup, only not as sudden–just as Reader Response largely displaced and discredited New Criticism. If you think about it, what Appleman and others are suggesting is radical. They are suggesting that we can incorporate a variety of literary theoretical perspectives simultaneously, and that we can do this without having to displace any valid theoretical perspective (Implicit in this suggestion is a huge degree of confidence in the intellectual capacities of both secondary scholars and their teachers, which is an attitude that I think our schools need desperately). This incorporation of various perspectives is what Appleman is after, but she let a little of the old “coup” mindset creep in to her argument. I think it is a case of a rhetorical misstep. I like what Appleman is saying. A lot. But with me, Appleman is on probation. Being an educated person, I don’t like to feel like I’m being rhetorically toyed with, and when I catch a hint of fallacy in an argument, I become wary of everything else the author/speaker says.

By: jesteban

jesteban — Thu, 05 Oct 2006 00:51:11 +0000

I also noticed the Reader Response hate, but it may help to remember that Appleman almost HAS to discount Reader Response. When you argue for the placing literary theory in the classroom, Rosenblatt’s place in our classrooms has to be pushed aside a bit in order to make room for new schools of thought. You can’t really produce a reader response criticism and simultaneously weave together a marxist, or post-structuralist, criticism. Rosenblatt’s theories are valid and wonderful, but they have such a stronghold on what English teacher’s do that people can’t remove reader response practices from the fact that they are a theory just like feminism. So yeah, Appleman was a bit harsh on old Louise, but I’d consider it more an act of making room for others than of malice.

By: Cynthia

Cynthia — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 18:35:06 +0000

Jim,
I thought very much the same thing as I read Appleman’s chapter on Reader Response. While it is important to acknowledge how we as readers bring our biases, our experiences, and our beliefs to a text, I understand Louise Rosenblatt’s Lierature as exploration to require us to go much further than that. What I can thank Appleman for is making me question her remarks to the degree that I am currently re-reading Rosenblatt’s book in order to re-examine my perception of Reader Response.

By: Ms. scarbary

Ms. scarbary — Wed, 04 Oct 2006 16:33:28 +0000

Jim- I DO agree with you, and had a similar response to this chapter. Appleman fails to acknowledge the similarities in the students that can account for their similar responses- age, geographic location, identical classroom context- all having strong influence on their “individual” responses. Not to mention, as you already pointed out, that it is the same text, which is one whole leg of the triad.
Appleman reads as though she finds reader-response the weakest of the theories, as though personal experience is not a “critical” enough lens. I find this bias against the personal sort of lame, considering that Marxist and Feminist lenses are equally rooted in thematic criticism and response. There is no real method or process to criticism, so I reject the idea that personal connection is somehow less deep or less validly critical.