which-of-the-opposing-theories-reader-response-or-authorial-intent-is-correct-please-defend-reader-response-theory-in-this-essay
Requirements:
4 to 6 pages
4 Reliable outside sources (i will attach them below) if you find better sources please include them!
MLA Format
Your essay must contain:
a clear argument – you must take a clear and firm stand on the question
of which literary theory you agree with, Reader Response or Authorial
Intent.
Support for that argument by means of evidence.
A counter-argument – Make a case for the opposing opinion.
A rebuttal to the counter-argument – Why the opposing opinion is weak.
Your thesis statement will answer the question:
Which of the opposing theories, Reader Response or Authorial Intent, is
correct?
Authorial intent Theory:
A position that argues that the creator of a text possesses a privileged
understanding of its meaning and that consequently any interpretation that
contradicts this understanding must defer to the author’s intentions.
Reader Response Theory (This is the topic I would like for you to defend)
A view of literary works that argues that meaning does not reside in the
text, but in the mind of the reader. The text functions only as a canvas onto
which the reader projects whatever his or her reactions may be. The text is
a cause of different thoughts, but does not provide a reason for one
interpretation rather than another.
sources to use:
Focus on Reader-Response Strategies, 2012books.lardbucket.org/books/creating-literary-analysis/s10-03-focus-on-reader-response-strat.html.
“Pennington Publishing Blog.” Reader-Response Theory | Pennington Publishing Blog, blog.penningtonpublishing.com/reading/reader-response-theory/.
Purdue Writing Lab. “Reader-Response Criticism // Purdue Writing Lab.” Purdue Writing Lab, owl.purdue.edu/owl/subject_specific_writing/writing_in_literature/literary_theory_and_schools_of_criticism/reader_response_criticism.html.
Scott, and Linda M. “Bridge from Text to Mind: Adapting Reader-Response Theory to Consumer Research.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Dec. 1994, academic.oup.com/jcr/article-abstract/21/3/461/1845277.
