If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?
I would say yes. Sound is defined (by google dictionary) as:
"Vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear."
Just because you are not there to hear it doesn't mean there aren't sound vibrations produced.
Similarly, just because you (the reader) do not identify with the work doesn't mean the work lacks meaning. It may mean you dislike the work. For example, I have never liked The Catcher in the Rye. I read it in high school, and I reread it recently with a student. I never identified with Holden; I was never a disaffected youth, and now that I am an adult I am particularly put off by Holden's constant complaining. I am not alone:
Tom Perrotta, author most recently of The Leftovers
On a recent episode of South Park, the kids got all excited about reading The Catcher in the Rye, the supposedly scandalous novel that's been offending teachers and parents for generations. They were, of course, horribly disappointed: As Kyle says, it's "just some whiny annoying teenager talking about how lame he is."
Is it more than that? Lots of people, including some writers I revere, seem to think so. But I've never been able to see what they're seeing, nor can I buy into the myth that Holden is some sort of representative American teenager. He's a self-pitying prep school esthete obsessed with his little sister, the kind of boy who takes it upon himself to erase obscene graffiti from bathroom walls. And that fantasy about catching children in a field of rye? "Thousands of little kids, and nobody's around—nobody big, I mean—except me." What's that all about? I'm not suggesting we need to like Holden in order to consider him important, I'm just baffled by the reverence and affection so many readers seem to feel for this peculiar creep.
Jonathan Rosen, editorial director of Nextbook and author most recently of The Life of the Skies: Birding at the End of Nature
When Mark Twain said that whenever he read Pride and Prejudice he wanted to dig up Jane Austen and beat her over the head with her own shinbone, it must have felt satisfyingly subversive. In the age of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, it's more of a compliment. Hating great books just isn't that fun when there's nothing you are required to like or read, and perfectly smart people keep telling you that The Wire and TheSopranos, excellent television shows, to be sure, have replaced the novel. But for what it's worth, I could never read The Catcher in the Rye; even as an unhappy adolescent I found the voice cloying, annoying, and frankly phony. And for the record, ducks do very well in Central Park in the winter. If worst comes to worst, Holden, they fly. They're birds for Chrissake!The following is my student's amusing imitation of Holden's narration. I should explain that to entertain herself she started calling Phoebe Fabio, and that she would never, ever swear like Holden.
"wow, this was really goshdarn depressing. I feel so depressed now, that i even miss the annoying phony people at St.Paul's before i got the axe. I would buzz them, but i wasn't in the mood. I still want to be the thrower in the wheat, even if it is so darn depressing and i wouldn't be with Fabio, she kills me, she really does, no really, i mean it. DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? OH FOR CHRISSAKE! SHE REALLY DOES! SERIOUSLY! JUST BELIEVE ME!!!!! i really need some dough...nuts."
All that being said, I recognize that the novel has meaning. I understand (from my extensive CSET studying) that it is representative of what many people were feeling at the time it was written. It just doesn't appeal to me.
Not identifying with the work may also mean you don't understand it, but again, the meaning is still there, just not accessible to you.
This one-act play by Beckett is called Krapp's Last Tape. Watch the first 3 minutes. Then be informed that there are more bananas following that one. Then be glad you don't have to sit through the remaining 40 minutes of the play.
I saw a production of this in college, where many many students were into experimental, abstract theatre. I was not. I don't identify with this old, lonely man. I don't understand the point of the play. However, I have no doubt that Beckett wasn't just messing with his potential audiences when he wrote it, intending for us all to be confused and bored. I am sure there is an exploration of a theme there, but I don't really know it is. There is no meaning TO ME; that does not mean there is no meaning AT ALL.
I appreciate Appleman's bipartisan explanation of the reader response approach. I agree with her that a reader response approach is a good way to introduce a topic. Students will certainly be more interested if they feel personal connections to the work. I think Appleman is correct in her suggestion that the reader response approach is just one of many perspectives to consider.
