PrepTest 116

Topic: Humanities

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • Debate between reader-response theory and formalists; author’s criticism of formalists
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Reader-response theory proponents’ view:
    • The text alone has no meaning and only acquires meaning when readers interpret it; varying interpretations possible (first and second sentences)
  • Formalists’ view:
    • Study only the text; reader-response theory encourages fragmented views (third sentence)
  • Author’s view:
    • More than one theory can show how works acquire meaning, so the formalists’ approach is unnecessarily narrow (last sentence)
  • Author’s attitude: “no theory has a monopoly” (last sentence); “unnecessarily narrow” (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • Formalists’ view and author’s rebuttal
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Comparison, according to the formalists
    • Formalism rests on rational, objective principles, while reader-response theory lacks standards and is subjective (first sentence)
  • Formalists’ view:
    • Author’s intended meaning may be hidden, but it can and should be found (third sentence)
  • Author’s view:
    • Literary works consist of signs/symbols, but a work is not a map, and criticism needs to make use of reader/text encounters (fourth through last sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “indeed encoded in various signs and symbols that must be translated” (fourth sentence); “it is not a map” (fourth sentence); “invariably” (fifth sentence); “needed” (last sentence); “rich stock of meanings” (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • Author on benefits of reader-response theory
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Author’s view:
    • Reader interpretations have occurred long before reader-response theory articulated the position, and such interpretations can bring new depth and valuable interpretations to work (first and second sentences)
    • Although reader-response theory can “unfairly burden literature” with contemporary views, it adds additional insights and leads to “fluid and lively” discourse over old works (third and last sentences)
  • Author’s attitude: “uncover hitherto unnoticed dimensions of the text” (first sentence); “unfairly burdened literature of the past with contemporary ideologies” (third sentence); “legitimate additional insights and understandings continue to emerge” (third sentence); “legitimizes a wide range of perspectives” (last sentence); “fluid and lively forms of discourse” (last sentence)

Main Point: Despite the objection of formalists and the occasional unfair burdening of literature with contemporary morals, reader-response theory encourages important interaction between readers and text, allowing for new depth and lively discussion about the meanings of older works.

Lines 6-12 - A new approach

Lines 12-17 - The old approach

Lines 17-20 - The author’s opinion on the old approach

Lines 21-24 - Proponents’ view of the old approach

Lines 41-44 - Benefits of the new theory, according to the author

Lines 58-62 - More benefits of the new theory, according to the author

Old Approach/New Approach: The passage opens up by describing an approach to literary criticism that “arose in reaction to” another, suggesting that the passage is going to fall into the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure. Throughout the rest of the passage, the downsides of the old approach are discussed (Lines 18-20; Line 35), and the benefits of the new approach are raised (Paragraph 3). In such a passage, the author’s opinion of the new approach generally constitutes the main point. Here, it’s important to note that the author makes some concessions to the argument against the new approach (see discussion below), so that needs to be reflected in the main point. However, the discussion of the benefits of the new approach shows that the author is largely in favor of it, leading to the main point we summarized above.

It’s important to note that the author doesn’t argue in favor of reader-response theory at the end of Paragraph 1, but rather against the constraints of the formalists’ approach. The author could easily have followed that up by noting that reader-response theory is problematic and a third approach —or a combination of the first two — is needed. It’s not until the end of Paragraph 2, where the author calls for a method that incorporates the views of readers, that we can associate the author with the reader-response movement.