Reader Response: Wolfgang Iser and Interaction

1      According to Wolfgang Iser, the relationship between texts and readers is one of interaction. In fact, the WORP project might be viewed as a hypertextual extension of Iser's model of reading. Iser posits an active role for readers, who participate in the meaning-making process of textual creation through the act of reading. For Iser, reading is propelled by the reactions and responses of readers. These reactions are in part determined by the repertoire and structure of the text (which provide some insight into the role of the author of the text in Iser's scheme). Still, the interactions are in large part determined by the subjectivity of the reader. This subjective element, however, cannot overdetermine the interaction that takes place and Iser is careful to frequently warn against assuming that interpretations and texts "[disappear] into the private world of [their] individual readers."

2      Iser sees readers as active creators of the meaning of texts, but also ascribes an active role to texts as a way of countering reader's subjective interpretations: "The process of assembling the meaning of the text is not a private one, for although it does mobilize the subjective disposition of the reader, it does not lead to day-dreaming but to the fulfillment of conditions that have already been structured in the text" (Act, 49-50). Iser's introduction of the subjective element in the process of reading is problematic (as would be its exclusion), but his point about the way that texts structure the potential experience of readers can be extrapolated and applied to the WORP hypertext. Like the text, which Iser sees as "a structure that enables the reader to break out of his accustomed framework of conventions" (Act, 50), WORP creates a framework that structures readers' experience of the texts it offers even while asking them to take an active role in formulating the meaning of those texts.

3      The structure that WORP provides represents a reader-centered approach which is similar to Iser's. For Iser, literary texts require readers to actualize them and the fulfillment of the potential reading of a text which is actualized represents a kind of conversation between the text and the reader: "The literary text, then, exists primarily as a means of communication, while the process of reading is basically a kind of dyadic interaction" (Act, 66). This communication should not be viewed as uni-directional. Rather than a text delivering some kind of message to a reader, the reader "is bound to insert his own ideas into the process of communication" (Act, 67).

4      Additionally, Iser argues, reading shouldn't be seen as a linear process which unfolds clearly over time. Instead, a more recursive process occurs whereby new knowledge both within the reader and the text modifies old and through which a more general apprehension of the meaning of the text is developed:

5      Thus, the reader's communication with the text is a dynamic process of self-correction, as he formulates signifieds which he must then continually modify. It is cybernetic in nature as it involves a feedback of effects and information throughout a sequence of changing situational frames; smaller units progressively merge into bigger ones, so that meaning gathers meaning in a kind of snowballing process. (Act, 67)

6      Iser posits a text and reader involved in a kind of recursive communication loop. The "feedback of effects and information" applies equally to readers and texts and constitutes small units of meaning or "situational frames" of reference which "merge" to form larger units of understanding.

7      While this model offers a valuable way of looking at the reading process, the way that Iser demonstrates the model also speaks to what is in many ways revolutionary about the WORP hypertext. To demonstrate his model of reading based on recursive interaction between readers and text, Iser constantly refers to his own readings of literary texts.(2)


8      It's not that the readings put forth by Iser don't illustrate a process of recursive meaning making. They do. But the proof for Iser's claim that the reader "inserts his own ideas into the process of communication" is based upon Iser's insertion of "his own ideas" into the interpretation of literary texts, making his claims somewhat circular. In the end, for all his efforts to establish an interactive paradigm, Iser's model still falls victim to the tendency of interpretations to "[disappear] into the private world of [their] individual readers" (Act, 49).

9      The interaction which takes place during a reading of the WORP hypertext has the potential to move beyond this solipsism. In contrast to a modified reading which exists within an individual reader, interaction with WORP has the potential to produce a (still recognizable) modified text.annotations

10      The figure on the left shows a section of the "The Unsex'd Females" which has been annotated by readers and one reader's annotation. Note that the sample shown in the figure contains a total of nine annotations which have been added by readers. Each annotation is placed within the original text in the form of a hypertextual link (shown in the left-hand frame as underlined phrases). In the right-hand frame shown in the figure, an annotation to the phrase "unsex'd woman" appears. WORP has allowed this reader, Courtney Lindsey , to record her interaction with the text in a way which is more concrete than that envisioned by Iser. In some ways, Lindsey's comment represents the kinds of recursive interpretations that Iser suggests all readers create as they read. The poem remains intact, since Lindsey's comment is placed outside of the poem's frame.(3)


11      At the same time, however, Lindsey has recursively modified the text because her commentary is now physically linked to the original poem. Future readers of "The Unsex'd Females" will have the option of reading Lindsey's comment alongside the original poem. They will see the two "effects" situationally framed in a way which is more visible and concrete than Iser's interaction.

12      The implications of such concretized interactions with the literary work suggest that projects like WORP can literalize the claims of reader response theories of literature. It bears noting that this kind of literalization does not necessarily work against the grain of Iser's theory of reading. Rather, it offers ways of making public some of the processes that Iser finds worthwhile in the interactions between readers and texts. Lindsey most likely also underwent additional recursive processes of interaction and assessment as she read "The Unsex'd Females" or moved through the WORP project. These processes remain an important part of the reading and "private" to Lindsey. What WORP has done is provide a mechanism for some of the connections that are developed during the reading process to be made explicit. It hasn't necessarily fundamentally altered that process, only enhanced the ways of articulating it.

13      But WORP has the potential to facilitate interactions that move beyond the model offered by Iser. While Iser suggests that a reader and a text enter into a kind of conversation, WORP makes possible the extension of this dialogue to include other readers. The conversation between Lindsey and "The Unsex'd Females" is made manifest by her glossing of a phrase. This gloss function, however, represents only one level of interaction facilitated by the WORP project. Many of the other "reader response" functions enabled by WORP also beg future readers for further interactions. For instance, the commentaries which are woven into the project by creating a discussion forum as an annotation allow the dialogue to refer to and begin with the original text and a single reader, but to broaden out to include any number of readers who might come later. The potential for interaction to become participatory in this more communal way represents the possibility of moving interpretation beyond "the private world" to create a sense of meaning which is more concretely intersubjective.(4)