Readerly Reading of Writerly Texts - try saying that 10 times in a row...

I came across <a href=“http://www.jstor.org/stable/20119619?seq=2”?>an interesting article</a> during my research of Roland Barthes theory of the readerly and writerly written by John S. Brushwood regarding the readerly reading of a writerly text. This was an idea I wanted to explore in opposition to Barthes belief that readerly texts are so fixed, so “characterized by the pitiless divorce which the literary institution maintains between the producer of the text and its user” that they are not worthy of reception in our modern world.

I do not believe this to be true. To suggest and enforce this idea suggests that most audiences of literature, art or media are incapable of producing separate meanings from eachother because the text itself is so fixed. I know for a fact though that if I read Twilight and discuss the character development of Bella in the opening chapter with my 16 year old sister, her and I will have two completely different interpretations of the text: we will both produce different meanings of the text based on our opinions, values and personal past.  On top of this, Barthes claims that the Readerly text is also incapable of allowing any participation within the text itself, rendering the reader a consumer of the text rather than a producer.

Brushwood argues, “A sensitive reader inevitably participates in the act of communication that occurs when one reads a novel, no matter how “traditional, how logically structured the narrative may be”. He goes on to say that obviously “radically fragmented texts demand a degree of participation, on the part of the readers, that places them in an authorial position where, even though they do not really stand in place of the author, they are at least by the author’s side. This phenomenon, in effect, denies the readers the position of addressee, and places them in the position of sender. Therefore, the communication may acquire a feeling of inauthenticity, the sense that no real communication is taking place, or that, at best, the sender is addressing the sender, not the addressee”.

That long spiel is all relevant to my thoughts and feelings towards Barthes readerly and writerly theory. You can not deny that an entire global audience is incapable of finding multiple meanings within a “traditional” text; yes, I will concede that multiple interpretations of the narrative may be limited but ultimately, I believe it is the connotations that Barthes talks about that is more important to be received from a text than whether or not it produces multiple narratives. We are all different. We all have different value systems and opinions and all of this shapes our understanding of a text and the meaning we receive. No two people will navigate their way through a K-Film in the same way and if they do, it will be probably be by chance. The reason for this is because the human brain strives to produce meaning in its own way and as we know, no one shares a brain with anyone else unless they are conjoined twins.