For this week’s blog post, I am interested in exploring subjective reader-response theory in relation to Gretel Ehrlich’s The Solace of Open Spaces. In the past, I have focused on Ehrlich’s syntax or the organization of her memoir and not so much on how the memoir makes me feel as a reader. Also, my previous responses have focused heavily on the text and structure of the memoir, which is why a literary theory that states that “reader’s responses are the text, both in the sense that there is no literary text beyond the meanings created by readers’ interpretations and in the sense that the text the critic analyzes is not the literary work but the written responses of readers” (Tyson 170) is an interesting way for me to look at Ehrlich’s work. My questions pertaining to subjective reader-response theory have to do with how we, as readers, do not fall into the trap of simply reading for relatability when applying this theory. 

As I recall from reading Rebecca Mead’s article on “The Scourge of ‘Relatability,’” readers often use the excuse that they do not see themselves reflected within the text or cannot sympathize or empathize with characters or scenarios. If this subjective reader-response theory relies, according to David Bleich, on “experience oriented” reader responses that “discuss the reader’s reactions to the text, describing exactly how specific passages made the reader feel, think, or associate” (Tyson 171), how does this relate to the esteemed writing academia values so heavily? I believe the escape from just reading for relatability comes in answering the third guideline in creating a response analysis statement, which asks the reader to determine “why these responses [to the text] occurred” (Tyson 172). In thinking about the response a reader has to a particular paragraph or text first, as I will attempt to do in the next paragraph, the reader is able to address a section that appeals to them and then dig into it deeper to understand how specific textual elements result in that response and how it affects the meaning of the text as a whole. 

In order to apply the subjective reader-response theory to Ehrlich’s chapter “On Water,” I will construct a response-analysis statement by following Bleich’s three proposed guidelines, which ask the reader to:

1. Characterize his or her response to the text as a whole
2. Identify the various responses prompted by different aspects of the text, which, of course, ultimately led to the student’s response to the text as a whole
3. Determine why these responses occurred

I will be applying these guidelines to the following passage:

“Water can stand for what is unconscious, instinctive, and sexual in us, for the creative swill in which we fish for ideas. It carries, weightlessly, the imponderable things in our lives: death and creation. We can drown in it or else stay buoyant, quench our thirst, stay alive” (Ehrlich 83). 

As a former competitive swimmer, I feel most comfortable and most myself when I am a body of water. Thus, I felt drawn to Ehrlich’s chapter of The Solace of Open Spaces titled “On Water.” Without even reading this chapter, I had already made up my mind that I would enjoy the contents of the chapter and could relate to it personally in some way, as water created the direct line that connected my experiences as a reader and to Ehrlich’s experiences as the author. While this predisposition is more explicitly addressed by the social reader-response theory, I think that my interaction with this text can also be addresses by the subjective reader-response theory as I am “describing exactly how specific passages made the reader [me] feel, think, or associate” (Tyson 171). My initial response to this passage is that it makes me feel hopeful and at ease; I feel relief and comfort when I read Ehrlich’s words about water. I then realize that I am responding to the passage in this way because I feel an intimate connection with water, having grown up surrounded by it, whether that be in a swimming pool during practice or fly-fishing on the river with my father. For me, water is the only constant thing in my life: every major life moment for me has some connection with water and my strongest and most emotional memories are of times when I have won swimming races, fell into deep bodies of water, played in the waves with my sister, or spent late evenings tying flies on my father’s drift boat. I completely understand how water can symbolize the boundary between life and death and feel an intense sensation of relief when Ehrlich projects the feeling in my heart into words on a page as I know that at least someone else shares this sentiment and I am not alone. 

 By analyzing my own response to Ehrlich’s passage about water, I, as a reader, am able to understand why I identify with the text and how that shapes my response to the text as a whole. Yes, I do “relate” to the text, but Bleich’s guidelines help me to understand how and whyI do, undermining the simplicity of a reader liking a text because it is “relatable.” This theory is particularly useful when applied to a memoir (and for me thinking about memoirs for my SCE) because it encourages the reader to understand their complex relationship to the text in regard to their own personal lives, which is exactly at the heart of what makes certain memoirs such successful and compelling texts. I do think it is more serviceable to use this reader-response theory in addition to a close reading of the text, as I think there needs to be more textual weight behind the argument in order for the passage to be considered sufficiently analyzed. 

Ehrlich, Gretel. The Solace of Open Spaces. New York, Penguin, 1985.

Mead, Rebecca. “The Scourge of ‘Relatability.’” The New Yorker, 1 Aug. 2014, https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/scourge-relatability. Accessed 19 Sept. 2019. 

Tyson, Lois. Critical Theory Today. 3^rd ed., Routledge, 2015.