• View
• Edit
• History
• Print

Louise Rosenblatt Annotated Bibliography Articles

Rosenblatt posits Robert Louis Stevenson as an example to clarify the relational problem between the writer and common reader. Stevenson did not adhere to the Victorian principles set forth for the novel, in that it should serve a moral or dutiful purpose to the masses. In fact, Stevenson was more closely aligned with the “literary rebels” such as Henry James, Walter Pater, and Oscar Wilde (196). Despite the reading public wanting specific conventions included in their novels, Stevenson could not compromise the verisimilitude in his writing just for the sake of the reader’s preference. Stevenson resolves to evade the dilemma by embedding his writing under the guise of American romance, going so far as to eliminate females from his works. In essence, he avoids those issues entirely with which his audience was most concerned. Rosenblatt describes this compromise as a violent reaction to the public audience and ultimately stunted Stevenson’s creativity.

As the title might suggest, Rosenblatt discusses the value of teaching contemporary and classical literature in the classroom. Although many students are drawn to contemporary or popular materials, classical texts are a necessary element to a well-rounded curriculum. Since student readers typically try to relate to a text, usually through past or present experiences, it’s important for the teacher to know and understand the students. Teachers cannot simply be the “antiquarians” of classical literature (105). Classic and contemporary literature can be incorporated together in the classroom, but neither should be valued over the other. The instructor needs to remember that what is valued as “good” literature is relative and should not merely be dictated to the student, especially considering that personal experiences serve as a transactional filter.

The journal of College English solicited college and university professionals to help determine the special responsibility of the field during wartime. Rosenblatt was one of the nine, out of twenty-five requests, who answered. The practices she proposes are for peacetime and war, emphasizing the use of “literature [as] a means for clarifying and ordering [students’] understanding of themselves and of the war-torn world about them” (499). Indeed, students will have concerns and preoccupations, and “literature will thus become an important means of developing the awareness of alternatives, the sense of human dignity, and the balanced judgment required of those who are to be the ‘carriers’ of the democratic tradition” (500).

“Toward a Cultural Approach to Literature.” College English. 7.8 (1946): 459–66.

In a careful and thoughtful manner, Rosenblatt outlines a culturally sensitive comparative approach to world literatures, and literature in general, “based on a democratic system of values” (466). Studying “foreign literatures” can precipitate a contemplation and better understanding of cultural differences. Literature allows us “to enter emotionally into other lives, can be viewed always as the expression of human beings who [ . . . ] are, like us, seeking the basic human satisfactions, experiencing the beauties and rigors of the natural world, meeting or resisting the demands of society about them, and striving to live by their vision of what is important and desirable in life” (461). Reading world literatures can lead to us being more conscientious of other cultures and ways of life and more thoughtful citizens within our own society.

“Forward” to the Intergroup Relations Issue of the English Journal. 35.6 (1946):285–87.

Rosenblatt announces the focus for this particular issue of the English Journal: “The teaching of language and literature can be a potent means of nourishing the democratic appreciation of each human being as an individual, unobscured by any group label—racial, religious, national, social, or economic—which may be applied to him” (285). Literature can function as a catalyst in promoting diversity and acceptance. Additionally, Rosenblatt gives a brief glimpse of the authors’ articles included in the issue.

“The Acid Test in the Teaching of Literature.” English Journal. 45.2 (1956): 66–74.

Rosenblatt expresses concerns about the growing classroom size and the abandonment of teaching literature. Providing an open and safe classroom environment to approach and discuss literature is essential; however, certain traditional approaches may obstruct the student from texts. Teachers should encourage students to look for connections and personalize texts; otherwise, their understanding and interest in the text will only be superficial and obligatory. Furthermore, Rosenblatt likens the acquisition of reading and literary knowledge to that of first language acquisition. A particular process is involved in acquiring and strengthening understanding. Teachers should resist traditionally stringent interpretations of literature and promote this same idea to their students. Reading, as well as experiencing a text is a personal experience.

“Literature: The Reader’s Role.” English Journal. 49.5 (May 1960): 304–10, 315–16.

This particular article was developed out of Rosenblatt’s address given at the 1959 National Council of Teachers of English convention. Rosenblatt reminds us that the reading process involves the “book plus [the] reader” (304). She likens the relationship to a pianist playing a piece of music; the reader plays an instrument as well—himself. Especially when encountering imaginative literature, the reader fixates on his or her experience lived through the reading itself; thus, no one can “read, i.e., experience—a literary work of art for us” (305). Furthermore, if we read a work as a teenager and revisit it as an adult, the experience is completely different. Readers past experiences and current interests play an integral role in how the literature affects him or her. Teachers should emphasize not necessarily canonical works in their classes, but “quality literary experiences” (307). By the same token, teachers should not exaggerate the reader’s role within the transaction to the point they avoid important works, or rather choose easier, contemporary works. It is a fine balance within the transaction, and both text and reader are equally important.

In this essay, the author states a case for the “literary importance” of Pater’s work, as it “develop[s] a fictional method in his series of ‘imaginary portraits’” (127). Rosenblatt argues that Pater’s influences in creating “Marius the Epicurian” branches further out than Matthew Arnold’s “Marcus Aurelius,” as suggested by Kenneth Allott. Pater’s interest in world literatures demonstrates Italian, French, and especially German influences. In fact, Pater reviewed Lemaitre’s Sérénus prior to writing “Marius,” and it seems more than coincidence that his work contains elements that closely resemble Lemaitre’s text. Rosenblatt suggests that perhaps “Pater’s ending was suggested to him midway in the writing of this book,” as the method changes in narrative (141). She believes Pater “had reached an impasse concerning the outcome of his own novel” (142). However, the work should be considered for its historical and literary value. (This paper was presented at the 1957 MLA annual meeting at the University of Wisconsin in a condensed version).

“The Poem as Event.” College English. 26.2 (Nov. 1964): 123–28.

This paper was read at the 1963 NCTE meeting, and is taken from Rosenblatt’s work Literature as Exploration. The author presents practical research that demonstrates the process of making meaning from text. She asked several high school teachers to read and interpret a four-line excerpt from a Frost poem, of which none of the teachers recognized. Rosenblatt explains that even in the initial, perhaps oversimplified and literal, responses cognitive associations were happening. Rereadings and reinterpretations allowed for intertextual analysis that is active. The role of the text is twofold: 1) it “is a stimulus activating elements of the reader’s past experiences”; and 2) it “serves as a ‘control’ […] for a critical reworking and ordering of what has been called forth into the reader’s consciousness” (126). Note, the role of the text is dependent upon the reader. The occasion of reading is an active exchange between text and reader. “The poem as event in the life of a reader, as embodied in a process resulting from the confluence of reader and text, should be central to a systematic theory of criticism” (128).

“A Performing Art.” English Journal. 55.8 (Nov. 1966): 999–1005.

Rosenblatt demonstrates the necessity to resist the practice of the New Critics, and advises against the idea of a single correct interpretation of texts. One objective of transactional reading to “help the student toward a more and more controlled, more and more valid or defensible, response to the text” (1001). Our typical approaches to analyzing, teaching, discussing, giving assignments, and assessing “should direct attention to, not away from, the work as an aesthetic experience” (1003). Challenging students to examine their responses and interpretations will allow them to become more aware of critical terminology and graduate to more challenging works. Rosenblatt defines this process as inductive study of literature. Furthermore, instructors should not try to separate the aesthetic from the technical in literature. Stylistics, tone of voice, symbolism, etc. can lead student readers to make certain interpretations, and these technical elements work in conjunction with the emotional meaning of a text.

“Pattern and Process—A Polemic.” English Journal. 58.7 (Oct. 1969): 1005–12.

Rosenblatt presented this paper at the NCTE Milwaukee convention in 1969. In this essay, the author makes a strong argument for continued improvements in curriculum throughout departments across the U.S. Small progress has been made, however, not enough. She criticizes the curriculums that have been created around the New Critics theories and the Bruner model (based on theories from Jerome Bruner). New Criticism was an admirable attempt, but it is a “pseudoscientific objectivity” that displaces the reader, and “underlying such rejection of concern with the reader’s experience is the failure of the twentieth-century critical theory to deal adequately with the nature of literature” (1008). A more successful curriculum must include the central transaction that occurs between reader and text.

Rosenblatt analyzes Whitman’s work, asserting its relativity to the current time. Whitman prescribes a dualistic role of man within American society in that we continuously hover between individual and aggregate nation. The new generation should not forget the achievements of the past; however, they cannot hang on to them either. Instead they must create their own in order to achieve the ideal democracy. Whitman’s society did not take into consideration the large influx of immigrants that Rosenblatt’s generation experienced, and a newly developed consciousness regarding ethnicity. She suggests also that it would be detrimental should ethnic groups completely assimilate and lose touch with inheritance in order to conform to the single nation. Consequently, “aggressive withdrawal into groups lies the danger of an intensification of differences, the danger of competition, of separatism, of conflict” (154). The delicate balance hinges on ideas presented and furthered by the “Literatuses,” scholars, writers, professionals, politicians, etc. (155).

“What Facts Does This Poem Teach You?” Language Arts. 57.4 (1980): 386–94.

Rosenblatt suggests how to cultivate aesthetic reading transactions in the classroom. She has observed that the efferent stance is valued more in teaching approaches across the nation, which only allows students a partial literary experience. Instructors may use an emotional experience to a literary work a student undergoes to serve as a catalyst to venture deeper into the text, in the process of making meaning. The only way programs may improve is to understand the inextricable link between efferent and aesthetic reading. “Once there has indeed been a lived-through evocation from the text, students can be led toward increasingly self-critical and sound interpretations, and enhanced capacity to relate the experience to literary, historical, or social contexts” (46).

“Act I, Scene I: Enter the Reader.” Literature in Performance. 1.2 (1981): 13–23.

In this essay, Rosenblatt reiterates the foundation of her theories in that reading is a transaction between reader and text. She reminds us of the two types of reading: efferent and aesthetic, and the downfall of the educations system has been to focus primarily on efferent reading. She parallels early childhood language acquisition to making meaning from reading texts, and gather support from philosophers such as William James, John Dewey, and psychologists such as L.S. Vygotsky. There is an inherent cognitive developmental element between speech and print in how we process and understand meaning. When we consider performances of art, dramas, oral readings, presentations, etc., these events envelope the efferent and aesthetic, and it is the aesthetic that so deeply connects with the audience.

Extending and expanding her theories, Rosenblatt further explains the psychological and cognitive development of language in the early years and how it corresponds to reading. Drawing on Werner and Kaplan’s research, children’s development of meaning in signs/signifiers involves a “total happening” in which not only external references are induced but also internal references such as “attitudes, states, reactions, etc” (270). Rosenblatt correlates this to efferent and aesthetic reading; efferent involves the public context and aesthetic relies on the “experiential matrix” (271). If signs and signifiers are contextually fluid then aesthetic reading would be the events to challenge and broaden a young reader’s cache of meaning, not the efferent. Furthermore, she impresses upon teachers to advocate the aesthetic reading (but not completely ignore the efferent) so that we may prepare today’s youth for a healthy, democratic society.

Rosenblatt points out the divide regarding what constitutes “literariness” among the literature and composition fields. Regardless how teachers may define what texts are literary or not, it cannot guarantee a literary experience for the student, for anyone. Differentiating her theory from James Britton’s participant and spectator, Rosenblatt asserts that in transactional reading the reader is both because “the ‘object’ on which the aesthetic reader concentrates is not ‘verbal,’ but experiential; the ‘object’ is the cognitive and affective structure which the reader calls forth and lives through” (57). Therefore, the reader determines for herself whether a text is literary or not, and by the same premise, the same text could be read in another sitting and a different conclusion may occur.

Rosenblatt demonstrates the interrelationships between the reading and writing processes. She defines the stance a reader takes with a text (efferent or aesthetic) determines the patterns of symbolization and construction of meaning to establish whether a work is literary or not. The process of writing encompasses a similar process in that the student determines a particular stance. (However, the initial transaction that begins a reading is very different than how it begins in writing). Rosenblatt calls for a “cross-fertilization” approach to the reading and writing processes. “Effective communications must be rooted in, must grow out of, the ability of individual writers and reader to generate meaning” (15). A humanistic approach to education is the best method to teach students how to determine particular stances.

“Literature—S.O.S.!” Language Arts. 68 (1991):444–8.

Rosenblatt urges instructors to help students develop a method for clarification so they know what they want out of a text: is the purpose for that reading efferent or aesthetic. With the popularity to want to use literature in the classroom often comes the misguidance that the focus should be on the efferent elements within those texts. “There are signs that the very efforts to rescue literature, though often excellent, may become self-defeating” (444). Instructors need to remember that in order for a work to qualify as literature it a specific and personal relation between the reader and the text. Consequently, it a particular reading process is necessary. Each event of reading relies on a particular time, place, circumstance, mood, emotion, etc. “Instead of thinking of the text as either literary of informational, efferent or aesthetic, we should think of it as written for a particular predominant attitude or stance, efferent or aesthetic, on the part of the reader” (445). In other words, the choice or stance falls upon the reader.

“Transactional Theory: Against Dualisms.” College English. 55.4 (Apr. 1993): 377–86.

Rosenblatt reviews her theory and its development, as well as disputes other traditional epistemology and reader-response theories. She takes issue in that most focus on either the reader or the text. This either/or approach is what John Dewey and Arthur F. Bentley term as ‘interaction’ and is “tied to the Cartesian dualistic paradigm that treats human beings and nature, subject and object, knower and known, as separate entities” (380). Rosenblatt disagrees with these dichotomous theories and asserts that developing meaning is on a continuum. Just as our experiences in the world are at once public and private, so are our experiences with literature. Rosenblatt also reminds us about the need to challenge indoctrinated “culturally acquired assumptions,” (385) and quotes Dewey: Democracy will have its consummation when free social inquiry is wedded to the art of full and moving communication” (386).

This essay is a culmination of all the elements Rosenblatt has incorporated into her transactional theory in both reading and writing. She refines the interrelated qualities the processes include in order to “select and synthesize elements from the personal linguistic reservoir, adopt stances that guide selective attention, and build a developing selective purpose” (19). She also defines authorial reading as the “spiral transaction” a writer participates in when creating a text (19). Authorial writing involves two approaches: expression and reception oriented. Expression-oriented reading determines qualitatively if the construction of a text is appropriate and/or successful in conveying intended meaning. Reception-oriented reading calls for the writer to disengage from the composition and approach the text as another reader might. The reception-oriented reading also requires the author to verify the potential audience’s interpretation against his or her own.