> I've never seen a better case for reader response theory/pedagogy.
I agree, I think! What I think of when I think of "reader response" in
the context of this current discussion are the differences between the
text which Steve K. constructed, the one that Beth constructed, the one
that I constructed, and so on -- and the reasons for our differing
constuctions. Some of this, for me, resolves to the scripting of
individual selves (maybe even dna scripting), such that looking for a
definitive text (along the lines of "is there a text in this class")
becomes a quizzical or quixotic adventure. I'm still interested in what
the horses have to say, and very glad for the q and q adventure, but I
don't think there will be anything definitive in what the horses might
say! I'm more interested in why a given person constructs a given text
and I'm figuring that's what reader-response is about, although I really
haven't read that much about it. . .
Bob