reader response criticism

This is an optional final discussion; it is worth 20 extra-credit points if you choose to do it. You are not required to respond to other postings, though feel free to do so if you like.

but first a mini lecture!
OH NO!

No, really; I promise; this will be really short :)

There are lots of "schools" of literary criticism. Some (historical, socio-economic) look at a work in its context. Some (psychological, archetypal) try to unravel symbols relating to human psychology. Some consider the biography of the author in relation to a work. Most (the ones I was schooled in) are textual, looking closely at the words on the page and what they say literally as well as suggest/imply.

Reader-Response Critical Theory is perhaps the most fluid (and inconsistent) way to approach a work, but it is perfectly legit. How does the reader respond/react/feel while reading a work? You can see why this would be wildly inconsistent (though, oddly, not always). Reader 1 reads A Catcher in the Rye and is flat-out annoyed at Holdon Caulfield's wimpiness. Reader 2 reads the same work and discovers an authentic voice of a generation. Reader 3 finds the word experimental, edgy, richly symbolic, and Reader 4 considers it cheap genre pulp.

This may seem "fuzzy," but at its heart Reader-Response Critical Theory rests on a very thought-provoking assumption: without a reader, writing, in a sense, does not really exist. That's all pretty mind-bending philosophical stuff (not unlike, "Does the dance exist without the dancer? So is the dancer the dance?" Uhhhh...

All responses are correct; that is the feeling the work evokes in each as they work their way through the novel. The analysis comes in when the reader explains (and shows with quotatins/citations) WHY. Connsider this passage, which I feel (ohmygosh, did I break my "NO 'I FEEL' STATEMENTS!" RULE?) is the key passage in the novel:

"Anyway, I keep picturing all these little kids playing some game in this big field of rye and all. Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around - nobody big, I mean - except me. And I'm standing on the edge of some crazy cliff. What I have to do, I have to catch everybody if they start to go over the cliff - I mean if they're running and they don't look where they're going I have to come out from somewhere and catch them. That's all I do all day. I'd just be the catcher in the rye and all. I know it's crazy, but that's the only thing I'd really like to be." (Salinger)

Yes, I know block quotations do not get quotation marks, but this is actually dialogue being quoted, and dialogue does get quotation marks. Now is the passage a keen understanding of that hinge moment when we are no longer really little kids but are rather-normally afraid of taking on adult responsibilities? Is this something that a lot of contemporary "-ologists" see as a larger social issue? Is it just dimestore psychology? Is it richly symbolic while being couched in the adolescent slanginess of post-WWII suburbiak to show genuine depth beneath a goofy facade?

Yes, if that is what Readers 5, 6, 7, 8 experience and can explain, with examples from the text why.

end of mini-lecture
I told you it was short; didn't you believe me?

Now, here's the question.

Write a Reader-Response (about 300 words) answering the following:

Your Post will explain why you found this character particularly _____ (intriguing? sneaky? inventive? honorable? insightful? heroic? authentic? whatever). Be sure you back up your explanation with actual examples (quoted/documented) from the work that character appears in.

Note: you are not required to respond to any other Post this week, though you are certainly welcome to.

And there are no right/wrong answers, just different ways of perceiving and different examples to support those perceptions. Have fun :)

Reminder!
This discussion is due on the message board on Friday (not the normal Thursday). Late submissions will not be counted, and, in fact, the board will be closed Friday at midnight.