Reader Response as Adaptation

The concept of Reader Response as a literary theory relies on personal interpretation of individual works. Rather than letting an already standing singular truth about a work dominate the reading of the work, reader response lets each reader bring their own vision of the work to a discussion, although it is made clear that vast departures from what is specified in the text are viewed as less credible or valued as an interpretation. This aspect of reader response sounds similar to productions of a literary text into some other medium. The idea of taking a novel and turning it into a play, musical or even movie seems to rely on reader response to keep the same story original across all mediums it put in as well as the different variation of those same mediums.

Taking a novel that has been adapted more than once such as It by Stephen King allows for wiggle room to be made in each interpretation of the same story. It was originally published in 1986 with a story following multiple characters across a large gap of time. In the original novel, as well as the television miniseries, the story jumps between the late 50s and early 80s for its setting. The recent film adaptation of the novel instead makes a clear two-part story, the first set in the late 80s with the later half set in the mid-2010s. While this change in setting is drastic as it pushes the events of the novel forward by roughly thirty years, the same basic story is told. Changing the setting proves to only be a stylistic choice made by the writer and director of the film for the sake of their own personal vision of the film as well as relatability to a modern-day audience.

Along with this the characters change slightly in appearance between the three versions of the story, for example Pennywise. In the original novel Pennywise is described more like a modern colorful clown that has been the norm for clowns throughout must of the last century. In the current film adaptation, he is seen in a more Victorian era outfit with muted colors and a large collar. The most color placed onto the character is on its head with red paint detailing on the face and bright orange hair. While this outward appearance is different from what Stephen King originally wrote, this again takes into account that reader response doesn’t rely on any one truth. The author only writes the book or work of literature and after that point it is up to each individual reader to make their own reality out of what is written, and it is expected to always have variation between readers. No one can limit the interpretations of each reader, or director of a film. No one person has a final say on what is “correct” for a work of literature, even if they are an instructor or even the author. The community as a whole can decide something is too far off from what is meant to be part of a story. This would be like if a film adaptation of It were to replace Pennywise or the actual Creature with more traditional killer with no cosmic horror qualities. This would sort of creative liberty would change the core of the story revolving around an intangible antagonist.

King, Stephen. It: a Novel. Scribner, 2019.

Readers’ Response, Psychology, and Agency

Glancing over my peers’ blogposts, I can see that some of us had a similar thought about reader-response theory in general; that it can be particularly useful and poignant when viewing works that touch on sensitive or controversial topics. This, of course, is because readers react in vastly different ways to these kinds of issues, and so, if the reader is giving the text meaning, but many readers are split from authorial intent or each other, this gives the text many possible branches from which an understanding may be born. And I think Stanley Fish touches on another reason why this happens, from a baser human level. He says, “Not that the reader falls and becomes one of Satan’s party. His involvement in the speech does not directly compromise his position… since his response (somewhat unconscious) is to a performance rather than to a point of view…” (10). While Fish is talking specifically about readers in Paradise Lost, this can be taken in a broader sense. Readers do not want to feel like their morality is compromised, challenged, or otherwise tested when reading about difficult topics. But they do. And this is a response to a self-generated interpretation, which, to me, becomes especially thought-provoking in psychological reader-response theory.

In Critical Theory Today, psychological reader-response theory is rooted in the concept that readers react to what they’re reading as they would react to real life situations, and people who adhere to this theory, like Norman Holland, are focused on what this reaction reveals about the reader, not the text (Tyson, 174). Lois Tyson goes on to explain the analytical descriptions of how psychological reader-response theorist would figure out what a reader’s reaction means about them, but I am more interested in the complexities of why people interpret texts to make themselves feel more comfortable in their reality, beyond just that they want to be comfortable. Since the process is unconscious, I think it isn’t much of a stretch to say that it’s more complicated.

On that note, I want to bring up one of the most emotionally charged and complicated texts that I know. I don’t have enough space to go fully into detail about VC Andrews’ My Sweet Audrina right here, but this gothic horror novel deals with everything from gang rape to child abuse, unexpected deaths to adulterous affairs to disabilities both mental and physical. It slams the button of issues people don’t normally want to think about, and so, unsurprisingly, it tends to be a banned book. So then how would a reader response to all the atrocities in this book and then adjust according to psychological reader-response theory? Why would they bother at all? I think a key point component of a reader’s interpretation goes into why they’re bothering to read a text. And a simple answer seems to be thank God that isn’t me. In My Sweet Audrina, the reader is hit with horror after horror without much room to breathe. To continue to engage with it, I think psychologically, it must provide people with the relief that it is only fiction, and it does this by distorting reality in interesting ways. But on the other hand, the readers who put the book down and never pick it back up are equally relevant. If the reader has the power to give meaning to a text as most of the different kinds of reader-response say, and if the reader’s reaction says something about them on the psychological axis, then there is something meaningful in halting the entire process and refusing to engage. This may seem like a half-finished analysis, but one that a reader certainly has the right to choose, especially if reader-response theorists are handing them the reigns.   

Works Cited

Andrews, V.C. My Sweet Audrina. Pocket Books, 1982.

Fish, Stanley. Surprised by Sin: the Reader in Paradise Lost. New York, Macmillan, 1967.

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3rded., Routledge, 2015.